It would seem fair that those people that "aggregate" other peoples work should compensate those people that created the work in the first place. However, in this case, the journalists should also understand that perhaps the aggregator is better at getting the material out than he or his platform, whatever it may be, is themselves, and that in the aggregation role lies that of an editor...at least to a degree.
The problem, of course, is that the more middle men that have to be paid, the more cost has to be passed onto the end consumer. And the end consumer may not value the final product enough to compensate all of the people involved, or may simply not have enough money even he/she does. The ease at which things are copied (or stolen, depending on point of view) drives the price toward zero, which drives a lot of good people out of business.
There's a catch 22 in the above scenario that has not been resolved yet, neither in the music biz nor in media.
The problem is this: copyright is not an inalienable right. Free speech is. Where the two conflict, free speech must win out.
TechDirt, since you state you are FOR artists rights, would you care to explain how it is their free speech should give people the right to make use of other peoples works as they like without compensating them for it? Once you've tried to argue that case, and believe you've created a convincing case for it, will you then care to explain what incentive there will be to create ANYTHING if you believe freedom of speech negates their right to protect themselves against theft?
Thanks!
And this comment by Mike42 is stupid (and insulting):
"If you're not an American, your confusion is understandable. If you are, then your confusion is unforgivable".
Oh so America is the shining city on the hill for freedom of speech? So tell me - what worth is freedom of speech if it's not married to political freedom then? In the US you have a 2 party system, with one party being right-wing and the other ultra-right-wing. Together they have created a society with unfettered access by corporations to throw any sums of money (without having to declare that they did so) into elections, a media run by those same corporations, and a society with income disparity that would make a Banana Republic blush + one of it not THE highest illiteracy rates in the Western world, one of the highest child mortality rates, highest murder rates, a for-profit prison system that sends 20% of black youth to jail at one time or another, endemic racism....do you want me to go on about the wonderfully free speech place that the US is?
Sure, you can shout all you want on a blog, because the system is so rigged that it won't amount to squat anyway. So get a passport Mike42 before you start talking about other countries, because it sounds like you've barely been outside of Kansas.
Might have been worth it to try and save the Bison-hide industry in 1872. By not having the hunters kill every last bison they could find, until there were almost none left.
As a whole this post is too market-forces positive in my opinion. There are other concerns in a society than "do or die". Sometimes a market can become disrupted through forces outside of the industry's own control, and it becomes necessary for the state to intervene to not have undue damage done in a transitional phase. Such an example was the car industry in the US when the housing bubble burst. Now, GM and Ford and the lot were obviously mismanaged prior to that event, and in trouble already, but nonetheless it does seem like it was worth it at the time to ensure these huge companies didn't die entirely, as they are now back in the black again.
Certain industries also have an strategic importance over and beyond their "competitiveness" and impact on employment and profitability. The food industry is one such. That is why countries all over the world give their farming industry subsidies. They don't want all of their food sources to be entirely in the hands of other people and countries. That's probably worth a thought too.
So the answer is - yes, sometimes it CAN be worth saving "an industry", even if the prevailing market forces would have such an industry die off.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by actcochise.
Aggregators vs. journalists
It would seem fair that those people that "aggregate" other peoples work should compensate those people that created the work in the first place. However, in this case, the journalists should also understand that perhaps the aggregator is better at getting the material out than he or his platform, whatever it may be, is themselves, and that in the aggregation role lies that of an editor...at least to a degree.
The problem, of course, is that the more middle men that have to be paid, the more cost has to be passed onto the end consumer. And the end consumer may not value the final product enough to compensate all of the people involved, or may simply not have enough money even he/she does. The ease at which things are copied (or stolen, depending on point of view) drives the price toward zero, which drives a lot of good people out of business.
There's a catch 22 in the above scenario that has not been resolved yet, neither in the music biz nor in media.
Freedom of speech vs. Copyright
This is nonsense:
The problem is this: copyright is not an inalienable right. Free speech is. Where the two conflict, free speech must win out.
TechDirt, since you state you are FOR artists rights, would you care to explain how it is their free speech should give people the right to make use of other peoples works as they like without compensating them for it? Once you've tried to argue that case, and believe you've created a convincing case for it, will you then care to explain what incentive there will be to create ANYTHING if you believe freedom of speech negates their right to protect themselves against theft?
Thanks!
And this comment by Mike42 is stupid (and insulting):
"If you're not an American, your confusion is understandable. If you are, then your confusion is unforgivable".
Oh so America is the shining city on the hill for freedom of speech? So tell me - what worth is freedom of speech if it's not married to political freedom then? In the US you have a 2 party system, with one party being right-wing and the other ultra-right-wing. Together they have created a society with unfettered access by corporations to throw any sums of money (without having to declare that they did so) into elections, a media run by those same corporations, and a society with income disparity that would make a Banana Republic blush + one of it not THE highest illiteracy rates in the Western world, one of the highest child mortality rates, highest murder rates, a for-profit prison system that sends 20% of black youth to jail at one time or another, endemic racism....do you want me to go on about the wonderfully free speech place that the US is?
Sure, you can shout all you want on a blog, because the system is so rigged that it won't amount to squat anyway. So get a passport Mike42 before you start talking about other countries, because it sounds like you've barely been outside of Kansas.
Is it not worth saving ANY industry?
Might have been worth it to try and save the Bison-hide industry in 1872. By not having the hunters kill every last bison they could find, until there were almost none left.
As a whole this post is too market-forces positive in my opinion. There are other concerns in a society than "do or die". Sometimes a market can become disrupted through forces outside of the industry's own control, and it becomes necessary for the state to intervene to not have undue damage done in a transitional phase. Such an example was the car industry in the US when the housing bubble burst. Now, GM and Ford and the lot were obviously mismanaged prior to that event, and in trouble already, but nonetheless it does seem like it was worth it at the time to ensure these huge companies didn't die entirely, as they are now back in the black again.
Certain industries also have an strategic importance over and beyond their "competitiveness" and impact on employment and profitability. The food industry is one such. That is why countries all over the world give their farming industry subsidies. They don't want all of their food sources to be entirely in the hands of other people and countries. That's probably worth a thought too.
So the answer is - yes, sometimes it CAN be worth saving "an industry", even if the prevailing market forces would have such an industry die off.