It's a "cheap shot" to point out that you have, undeniably, explicitly contradicted yourself? No way.
Yes. You did so without the context, which notes that this point has been heavily argued and no one fully agrees. Indeed, it was a key point in a lawsuit. You used that point to argue that I "didn't do my homework" which was clearly wrong. Leaving out the context is a cheap troll trick, and I called you on it, presenting the fact that you were being purposely intellectually dishonest (either that or you were unaware of the questions over the official status). So, take your pick: were you intellectually dishonest, or was it you who failed to do your homework? I think we both know the answer to that.
But, of course, I note you address none of that, and instead move the goalposts, which (now that I realize who you are) I am reminded is your usual technique when caught.
As for people reporting you, they are most likely not reporting you for disagreeing with me. Lots of people disagree with me or others here and do not get reported. Rather it is the manner in which you do so, which makes it clear you are not interested in having a discussion or correcting an error, but rather to personally attack me or this site. This is evident in the intellectual dishonesty in the way you presented the information above. That's why they are choosing to report you.
One would think that having seen it happen repeatedly, you might learn to not act in such a manner, but alas, it appears you are not so self-aware. Instead, you lash out and blame me. In the past, we have pointed out that you act like a 3 year old, and it appears you have not grown out of that mindset yet.
Anyway. Now that I realize who you are, I am reminded that there is no value in engaging with you because you will not engage honestly, but rather will move the goal posts, insult with abandon and generally spew misinformation all around.
Enjoy your weekend, and, as I'm sure you will, go ahead and get in your last word. But, we'll both know one thing: you were being intellectually dishonest here and now that you've been called on it, the best you can do is point in another direction and yell "squirrel."
Mike doesn't know where the Library is located in the scheme of things, presumably because he doesn't do his homework. But, I digress.
Oooh. Cheap shot.
The Library of Congress is a weird organization that effectively straddles both branches. And you know that. As an "agency of the legislative branch" it's reasonable to say that it's a part of the legislative branch -- as I did in that first post.
However, some people rightly pointed out to me that the Library of Congress is in this weird spot in which even though it is an "agency of the legislative branch" the Librarian actually officially works for the President and thus it can be argued that he's a part of the executive branch. In fact, THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF has claimed this:
"This Court has explained that, for Appointments Clause purposes, a “Department” is a component of the government that is “in the Executive Branch or at least ha[s] some connection with that branch,” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 127 (1976) (per curiam), and is “not subordinate to or contained within any other [freestanding] component” of the Executive Branch, Free Enter. Fund, 130 S. Ct. at 3163. The Library of Congress satisfies that standard.
The Library is headed by the Librarian of Congress, who is “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” and is authorized to “make rules and regulations for the government of the Library.” 2 U.S.C. 136. No statute limits the President’s oversight of the Librarian. Nor has Congress reserved to itself the power to review or influence the Librarian’s conduct in office.
So, yeah, it's a bit of a mess, but to argue that I'm somehow ignorant or "don't do my homework", when this is an issue that is a matter of clear dispute (including in filings before the Supreme Court)... well...
"To authorize" refers to contributory liability--only the copyright owner can authorize another to exercise one of the exclusive rights. Linking to a copyrighted work is authorizing someone to use that work, i.e., contributing to that use. If the authorization is itself not authorized, it's contributory infringement. Simple!
Not that simple. Merely linking to something is not, in any way, an "authorization." It's just a link. A pointer. A direction. If you ask me where the nearest bank is, and I give you directions, I have not "authorized" you to go to the bank, nor have I contributed to anything when you rob that bank.
That makes much more sense, thanks. Has that been used as a fair use criterion before?
Not that I'm aware of. To be clear, the court's reasoning here is a bit more complex. In last year's ruling it found that the searching and indexing was fair use using the standard 4 factors test, with a huge focus on the argument that the use is "transformative" (I agree!).
And thus, the analysis of these features was whether or not they were integral to the main product -- and *because* that product was deemed transformative, the judge's reasoning is that if these other features are integral, then they're part of what makes it transformative, and thus okay. So, the court argues, it doesn't need to do a separate four factors test for each here, just determine if it should be a part of the service already deemed fair use. And that's a little weird.
Also, the court is not particularly consistent in how it makes these determinations, as it's a bit of thumb in the air with each call and sometimes changing the rules as it goes.
Courts shouldn't get to decide which features of your service are OK? Actually that's pretty much the core of what a court is for: deciding what is and what is not OK. If a business is sued for fraudulent practices, would you complain that we don't want courts deciding what parts of their service are OK, and we should leave it to the market to decide?
Fraudulent practices is something different. That would be looking at if consumers are somehow being cheated. But in this case, the court is determining if these features are "integral" to the overall service. That's the troubling part.
I don't have a problem with courts determining that a company is committing fraud. Or even that it's committing copyright infringement. I do have a problem with the court saying that the fair use test is based on whether or not *THE COURT* thinks that the feature is important to the service.
Exactly. They are selling out and doing it fast.. This is not advertising is content that Mike is such a fan of. This is selling out to a third party
Actually, this is exactly advertising is content -- and seeing how many people actually click on and buy stuff every day, many of our readers appear to appreciate the deals. We are presenting potential deals for users, and many of them appreciate it. That's a win-win. People are getting something they want to buy and we make some money in the process.
It seems a lot better than invasive pop ups or selling your information or anything like that.
This is very much a great example of advertising as content. And, from the numbers, a very large number of our readers find it content they not only appreciate, but wish to spend money on.
You are destroying your credibility and our belief in your honest reporting of news articles by presenting spam as legitimate news. Want you are telling us is that you are for sale and will write anything in a news article if you make enough money.
These posts are clearly not presented as news articles -- but as part of our daily deal feature. They are clearly marked as deals posts, and from the response to them, plenty of people seem to appreciate the deals and take part in them.
We are not misrepresenting anything. We are not presenting "news" that we are being paid for. I do not understand your complaint other than you don't like these deal posts. It is not that difficult to ignore them if that's the case.
And, yes, these deals do help us stay in business. We do them instead of invasive things like selling data, pop ups, or other nefarious things. Would you prefer we make no money at all and not be able to publish anything?
Here's another conjob from the assholes of Silicon Valley:
Just because there are some assholish companies, as we all agree their are, how does that make it that all Silicon Valley companies are jackasses. Would you accept that if I pointed to a jackass musician that it means all musicians are jackasses? Or if I point to one example of a label ripping off musicians that all labels rip of musicians?
Thank god the government stepped in.
Or what? People might have eaten a product that is actually healthier for them, and which has all of its ingredients clearly listed on the label? Oooooooooh. The horror.
It wouldn't be so bad if Uber & Lyft had their own vehicles, or at least some vehicles so that people who were interested but whose cars are older than 5 years could still participate. Taxi companies own (or lease) their vehicles; they don't make their drivers provide them.
If the company owned its own vehicles, then it would be a taxi service. But it's not. It's a software platform for connecting willing drivers with willing riders. That's it.
Did you even bother reading the linked articles? The only thing that their responses could possibly be "better" than would be officers of the company literally showing up in person and assisting the perpetrators in victimizing their customers!
I'm confused as to why you're blaming the companies for these issues. As others pointed out to you, there are crazy cab drivers too (and in those cases you often don't even know who it is and there's no reputation associated with the drivers). Same thing with most bed and breakfast situations.
Bill Maher makes less and less sense the older he gets. "They forgot to build an app for sharing the profits." Uh, yes, they did actually. That's why people offer their homes on up on AirBnB or drive for Uber or Lyft -- because they're MAKING MONEY doing so. That's even more insanely stupid that Maher's standard idiocy.
The quote you have, in the most recent report, is designed to focus on the changes from 2011 to 2013. By 2011, certainly, it was no longer mostly about "catching up" on old missing tracks. Yet, it still went from 100 million to 180 million in just two years. Even if a bunch of that was missing tracks, a ton of it was new tracks.
Much of the market growth didn’t make it down to artists: The live music value chain is an incredibly complex one with multiple stakeholders taking their share (ticketing, secondary ticketing, venues, booking agents, promoters, tax, expenses etc.). The share of live revenue that artists make from live has declined every year since 2000. The impact on the total market is that total artist income (i.e. from all revenue sources) has declined every year too since 2009.
Yeah, live is a tricky business to track, and no one has particularly good numbers. It's a challenge, no doubt. Pollstar is the one that everyone goes to, but really only covers the big concerts. We tried to work with others, like Songkick, to get smaller venue data, but the data is quite limited. And, no doubt, touring is a very difficult way to make money.
While Johnson points to touring, we only mention it in passing, because we think other business models appear to be working much better for many artists, including direct to fan (Bandcamp), crowdfunding (Kickstarter, Patreon) and other things as well.
Your own report seems to have the same sort of figures with the exception that you seem to think that a massive increase in the Gracenote database equals a surge in creativity. In 2001, your first date, iTunes was at version 1 and had Gracenote incorporation, since then I've entered data for about 200 CD's myself (mostly small indie releases from New Zealand by artists who didn't know about Gracenote at the time), though I haven't had to enter anything for quite a while. Very few of these CD's were new releases, most were old discs I was digitising.
Did you read the report? We actually note this limitation to the data: "Now, that growth of the Gracenote database obviously includes a lot of older music that has only recently been indexed, so its expanding index doesn't exactly serve as the ideal proxy for the increasing rate of production of new music." We did present plenty of other evidence to show that there is a ton of new music, including the data from TuneCore.
So it's weird for you to suggest that we only relied on Gracenote. We did not, and directly indicated the limitation you pointed out.