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.
That's the point. Mike's calling for figures to show that Johnson is wrong. These are Johnson's only financial figures for music, and they don't back him up at all and, as you say, are useless.
The figures I was discussing was the number of people who are making their living as creators. And I said I wanted proof that the overall numbers were declining, not just that Johnson was off. We have lots more numbers in our reports.
Your side presents... nothing other than a few failed creators whining.
"Demolish"? They throw ad homs and they don't cite a single opposing number.
I think the FMC article has some valid points, but the other two? I mean, those are kind of embarrassing, since all they can do is insult people. Taplin especially. Weird. You'd think someone like him would actually have some data to back up his attacks. But, nothing.
From people who KNOW what the music business is. What do you know of the music business Mike? Other than as a casual observer.
My money's on sweet FA.
I know a good deal about the music business, since I talk to plenty of people in it all the time, but that's besides the point. This isn't about knowing "the music business" it's about numbers and statistics.
And neither Taplin, nor Newhoff, have a single number in their posts. Just weird ad hom attacks.
The FMC post, at least, has some more relevant critiques of the methodologies where the numbers come from, and I accept those as more valid. But they fail to provide any alternatives as well. Given all the numbers we've seen over time (beyond just what Johnson has), I've yet to see a single dataset that suggests there are few people creating today, and making money from it, than in the past.