I understand your frustration, but, Mr. Out_of_the_blue has as much right to voice his opinion as we do ours. If we ask that he be removed from this site, are we any better than the **AA asking that file-sharers be incarcerated?
OOTB is not breaking any laws when he is posting here, so let him post. If you do not like what he says, ignore it.
Personally, I find him highly entertaining in much the same way that I find several Viral videos entertaining (such as the True Meaning of MPH and the Please Move the Deer Crossing Signs videos.)
Wow, it actually seems like you are agreeing with Mike on this one. I guess there is a first time for everything. Of course, trademarking something as commonly used as "Best Of" is rediculous, and should be smacked down.
If Yelp used Village Voice's "Best Of" font, logo, and made it visually identical to what Village Voice had, I can see a case (though I still don't agree with it), but really, there is no confusion here. At all.
You are right that law-practice is almost risk free for prosecutors, which is why there are so many silly cases happening. I like the idea of juries deciding "irredeemably stupid prosecution." That idea is actually sort of brilliant.
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
Allowing someone to get back his legally created material which was siezed by the government is not baloney (or bologna).
Many people used Megaupload for perfectly legitimate reasons. As a storage place for their own records, and to distribute their own legally created software. These are all people who were hurt when Megaupload was raided.
Yes, infringing content was placed there. I am not saying that it wasn't used for infringement, but the innocent should not have to pay for the crimes of the guilty. After all, how would you feel if your car was taken by the police because a similar car three states over was used as a getaway vehicle in a crime. After all, all makes and models of that vehicle are obviously used for criminal enterprise right?
This is the same argument, and then there are shills and trolls like you, who say that it's ok. No it isn't.
I purchased two textbooks throughout college. I had a friend in the same course ahead of me. I ended up using his books for my classes (minus the two I purchased, because they were new to the course). I simply copied the changes from another student's books and did that. It worked well for me. When I was done, my friend sold his books and all was well.
The price of textbooks are far too high for the value you are getting. I would recommend a business of renting textbooks. You buy X number of textbooks and then rent them out (with a leaflet of changes) for a low price, that saves students money, and over the course of several semesters, gives you money.
And you don't know that he does. For someone who is in the public spotlight as much as Mike is, it would behoove him to follow the law, as he would be crucified if he didn't.
Really, it is you guys, who are willing to throw people under the bus just to prove a point, whether it is justified or not, who are intellectually dishonest.
There is a big difference between recognizing problems in a system, and being a part of that system. I suggest you step back and take a look at the big picture. People on both sides of the argument are often wrong. I am not saying that pirating files (music, movies or whatnot) is right, because it isn't, but what the content industries are doing is also wrong.
I am not talking about making money, that isn't the problem, the problem comes when they are doing so by sacrificing regular people's rights and freedoms. We live in a society that was built on freedom. Now, because some companies aren't making as much money as they want, they are trying to curtail our freedoms. All in the name of profit. That is not right either. Things need to change, or it will get much worse. They content industries will lobby government to strip away our rights, and the people will start rebelling more and more.
That is something that many in the industries are failing to see. Over-litigation will result in a massive backlash, much like what happened with the Prohibition. Perhaps by listening to what people want, they can avoid this, but it seems that they will continue down the road to self-destruction, because they refuse to listen to the people whom they profess to be catering to.
Despite what the content industries say, or believe, content will still be created. It will be innovative, and engaging. People will enjoy it, and it will be of good quality. Whether or not big studios are behind it or not. If you say I am wrong, look at Amanada Palmer's newest album. Released free, and it reached 10 on the Billboard charts. The industry will survive the death of the studios and labels. If the studios and labels want to continue, they need to change how they do things. Litigating to force people to buy from them won't work. It will hurt them in the long run.
See, this is what an open market is about. They must compete with their competition, and when some of their competition (such as Amanda Palmer or Dan Bull) are putting out content for free, they need to find a way to compete with that, or they will fall. Others will come up to replace them. Others that can compete, and are willing to offer people what they want in order to compete.
You see, Mike's formula of Connect with Fans + Give a Reason to Buy is a good one. One that the MAFIAA ignores in favor of lobbying government to give them exclusive rights. The further they go in their efforts, the farther they will be from connecting with their fans. This will lead to them refusing to buy.
A part of this equation is the fact that buying habits have changed. People WANT to connect to artists. They want to feel like they are a part of the process. By shuttering them, litigating against them, the MAFIAA is driving the market away!
"The problem is that with too many sources, with each band and each remix artist being a source, it gets overwhelming. There is no easy way to sort it."
Umm, the internet has things like databases and thumbs up and down. It will be very easy to sort it.
Music labels have always paraded themselves off as 'content filters', filtering out the bad from the good, so you don't waste your money on bad content. A laudable goal, and one that was neccessary in the past.
The advent of the internet has changed that though. Now the fans are the filter. They can give reviews and the like. And while everyones music tastes are different (as you pointed out), people will gravitate towards others with similar tastes and use their reviews and their opinions to filter and search for other bands they may like.
"See my comment above, it's like trying to fill a tea cup with a fire hose. Distribution isn't just open the fire hose and spray. That doesn't work really well. That is "ready, fire, aim" and that never hits the target."
A poor analogy from someone who doesn't quite get it. A while back, I was on DeviantArt and was checking out the artwork for an artist I like. He mentioned he was listening to a band I have never heard of before (in this case VNV Nation). He highly recommended the band. Now, I do not know the DeviantArt artists musical taste, but I thought I like his artwork. I think I will give this band a try.
I loaded up YouTube and found VNV Nations official You Tube page. I even found the exact song that that person was listening to. I LOVED it!!! The music was awesome. So much so, that I have, at the time of this writing, purchased every album this band has produced, in digital format.
Using the MAFIAA's method, I would probably still not have heard of this band, who is now one of my favourites. Your firehose analogy is simply no longer applicable on the internet. Especially with social media. You see all your friends like Band A, you will probably check out Band A. If you don't like Band A, then when you notice all your friends like Band B, you probably won't bother checking it out. This is how the internet can be used to filter. If Person A likes these five bands. You check them out and like them, when Person A finds another artist they like, you will most likely go and check them out.
Now, I am not saying that content from the MAFIAA is bad (some of it is, but each person's tastes are different), but their methods are. They need to recognize that the way people consume content has changed. By refusing to accept that, and fighting that change, they have set themselves up to fail. Whether or not the law is on their side is irrelivant. The prohibition shows this well - if people want content, they will find a way to get it, legally or not. Litigation will not change reality.
The end point is, if the MAFIAA does not change to meet consumers expectations, they will be left behind. Others, who will meet those expectations, will come in to fill the void. They will create a system that will act as the filter you think we will loose. They will create a system that allows you to find the music you want. They will be the ones that drive piracy down, and they will do it through innovation, not litigation.
Poverty does not justify crime, yet poverty breeds crime. Whether or not windowing justifies piracy isn't the issue. It will create it regardless. And just like the poverty example, heavier enforcement won't stop it either. The answer would be to find a more sustainable business model that will still pay the content creators for their creativity, and at the same time, won't punish the end users for living in a certain country, region, or whatnot.
Of course, why create a new business model when the old one works so well? The answer is simple. The old business model doesn't work anymore. Technology has changed, and businesses need to change as well, otherwise they will be left behind.
Piracy is not right, but the gatekeepers, and some content creators are forcing people to it by refusing to adapt to the current market. Piracy is a symptom of companies that refuse to innovate, and refuse to bring the customer the product they want. The consumers will go to the content they want, and if the creators won't give it to them legally, they'll get it another way.
Re: I think Konrath has his eye on "the long game."
Indeed. I find that publishers (and gatekeepers in general) simply miss the fact that most people want to consume their content legally and paid for, but they don't want to be hassled for doing so.
The few people who abuse the system would have done so anyways, and so instead of harming everyone to get the small minority of abusers, they should focus on keeping their paying audience happy, and let the abusers get their just rewards when they are caught.