Marcus, what can I say? Do you not read this blog? Do you know see Mike almost every day coming down on the side of an infringing site or "business model", because the rights holders should be happy that the fans are giving them free promotion?
What about the OK go story? He says they should allow anyone to use their stuff for free, and they should be happy for the promotion.
I still wait for the apology from RealDense, who pretty much blew it this time.
Perhaps you might want to get on his case for using profanity instead.
All I can say is that it is clear that you do not run your own website(s), and that you don't have to ever deal with this sort of thing.
Good ISPs (you know, not ones like 1&1 or other fast food ISPs) will communicate with you if and when they get a DMCA complaint. If you have the rights, you show them the rights you have, and they will NOT remove the content. the ISP is not the judge and jury.
Now, if your proof is "someone told me so" or "it was user submitted" you are pretty much lost. Having your own site doesn't mean you get to ignore the law.
No ISP is going to fight a DMCA on your behalf, but when presented with both sides of the story, the ISP can remove itself from the discussion and leave it between you and the copyright holder. ISPs often get served rather than the site owners because the site owners are hiding. If you register your domain(s) and use valid information, you are the one getting served.
I would say that this is something you need to learn more about, because for all your anger, you are just plain wrong.
Now comes the problem. Where to set the price point? The music and movie industries want that price to be the same as it has always been and that just isn't realistic.
If the price is too high don't pay it. But the price being too high isn't a license to just take a copy anyway. Live without the product because you don't value it enough to pay the price they want you to pay.
This is all about value. Music is no longer scarce nor valuable as record execs would like to believe.
new quality music is very scarce, even if replicating it after the fact is not. In the end, you aren't paying for the copy (that isn't the big end of the deal) you are paying for the original, new, and very scarce good music. without great music, you would be making copies of nothing.
After all, you value the music, not the plastic disc or the ones and zeros.
If I owned vinyl and needed to buy a cassette and then a CD, shouldn't I have only needed to pay a small fee for the materials, since I had already purchased the content? Did anyone even bother to ask or try that business model?
There are DRM style systems out there that allow you to do that, but most of the "FREE MUSIC!" types hate drm and don't want to get involved. It is really too bad, because it wouldn't be that hard for you to own a single copy and move it from device to device. All the rights holders want to do is make sure that you have one copy active at a time.
People are so busy pooping on DRM that they forget that it is very likely to route to what they really want to start with.
If you have the rights to use something and you get a DMCA, it's an illegal notice. It is up to you to pursue them in the same manner they attempted to get after you. If you don't want the right holders to have the support of the police or law enforcement to protect their rights, you don't get it either. If it is wrong, sue them back. Just make sure you are right.
"take responsibility for your site, take ownership, "
- the end result will be that your site will not host any music or video
Why not? What makes you say this? Why would you think this? Please explain.
Steve, if the government enforced copyright (and law enforcement would take legal complaints under copyright), then the corporations, right holders, and others would not be forced into playing detective to protect their works.
They get no police powers, they cannot arrest anyone, they cannot do anything of the sort. They have to use the copyright law and the powers of civil litigation to try to get anything done. It isn't very simple.
That the Obama administration is seeing that weakness in the IP area is a real long term issue for the US, and could really hurt investment and as a result innovation, leaves them no choice but to get involved.
Vincent, in all of your examples, you are forgetting important little nuggets that change everything.
public domain is public domain - anyone can use it. Disney didn't just use the public domain, they created new works, wrote new material, created new animations, etc. They certainly didn't get any of that for free.
For newspapers, the news event itself is just something that happens. The newspapers must write the stories (or pay for the newswire they get it from), pay for the images, the staff, the printing, the layout people, etc. The newspaper doesn't get "FREE" news, they take something that is in the public domain as a source for a product they pay to create.
Even a newspaper with no paid staff (volunteers) still pays in time and effort to create something. Nobody has the absolute rights to a news story (otherwise it isn't news, it is just an event), and there is no reason to pay anyone for anything. Some news organizations choose to pay for special interviews, but effectively they are paying for TIME, not the news.
It's a pretty basic concept you need to understand.
1) I don't think that they would be foolish enough to look at separate notices on the same day from the same sources as more than one strike. It would be like a policeman writing you 10 speeding tickets for the same offense because you were speeding for 10 feet. I would call this point "fear mongering" because you have no indication that this is true.
2) If the material is used with permission, there should not be an DMCA notices, and the DMCA notices would in fact be illegal (and subject to fine). There is no indication that there will not be some sort of mechanism to object or assert rights that you have in the process.
3) You are right, they should never sign with major labels, never sign distribution agreements, and never publish their music in any manner, because it just leads to getting well known! Stay in the garage where it's safe (egg cartons insulate too!)
My personal opinion: If you want to run a blog without issue get your own domain, pay for your hosting, and be your own boss. if you work off of platforms that other people use, particularly free blog hosting, you are pretty much committing suicide up front. You are almost entirely assured of a failure somewhere along the line.
Take responsibility for your site, take ownership, and then they will have to deal with your directly. That would change everything.
"The idea that webcasters/broadcasters should need to pay artists for the right to promote them to fans just seems bizarre and borderline incomprehensible in the first place. "
I could go on. But I think that shows very conclusively that Mike thinks that many of the web2.0 and other "new business models" should be based on not paying for the material you use.
So in the end, the only garbage being spewed here is coming from you, a guy who is attached to Mike's ass like stink on shit, and yet you don't seem to remember his very basic words.
Now, you can be a man and apologize for being wrong, or you can continue to be an asshole, call me all sorts of names, and continue to lie about my point of view. Which one will it be? Man or mouse? It's up to you.
Tee-hee, you guys are now officially both classics.
Henrybot and RealDense. A great pair!
RealDense, just a reminder, I have been in business longer than Mike, and I will likely be in business long after he has gone on to a career in a nameless office somewhere. Mike has lead you to believe I am some sort of business failure, yet here I am, still working and still making a good living.
For the rest of the comments, all I can say is that I don't take your comments very seriously, as you have shown yourself to be a very shallow attack dog, not a very intelligent poster. In fact, I have rarely seen you post anything here except attacks against me personally. I have to wonder if you have any original thoughts, or are you so full of crap that you can't manage anything past venomous attacks?
Too bad, you are passionate, but sort of in that short bus sort of way.
"wild west" is my own opinion, one that has been used in numerous media of the years to describe the many ways that web2.0 companies and business models casually ignore the law. The entire idea is to generate "top of mind" awareness of something before the lawsuits start flying, it seems.
As for Apple, the same thing could be said for selling music for a $1.29 or whatever. Based on the techdirt view of the world, anyone paying for music is the biggest sucker on the planet. But alas, millions of people do it every year, so they can't be all wrong.
More than anything, it is a step towards a more legal and supportive system for content producers and consumers alike.
What I don't get is that you keep going on about me. Get over it. You don't like my ideas, my opinions, fine. Just grow up and move along. Otherwise, you risk joining RealDense in the "classic" segment, which is people who have little to add, few ideas or opinions of their own, and just a whole bunch of hatred against people who don't toe the Techdirt party line outright.