alex 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (129) comment rss

  • On the post: Dan Bull Raps About How Megaupload Takedown Screws Indie Artists Like Him

    alex ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Re:

    Same here.

  • On the post: Some Data On How Much The Big Media Firms Are Donating To SOPA/PIPA Sponsors

    alex ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2011 @ 04:10am

    Re: Why is this legal?

    I must confess I don't know much at all about this subject. Are these sums of money which are just given to these politicians? Are the donations meant to be unconnected to political agenda?

  • On the post: The Pirate Party Effect: German Greens Scramble To Draw Up Digital Policies To Hold On To Voters

    alex ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2011 @ 01:39am

    Re:

    totally agree. Interesting times.

  • On the post: How Labels Pulling Out Of Spotify Are Doing Massive Harm To Themselves

    alex ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2011 @ 01:21am

    Re: Some good points, but an oversimplification

    small point but seeing as we're talking nuances:

    In the UK at least, almost all tracks on Spotify have "buy" links next to them. I've spent about ?50 per month for the last 3 months on buying mp3s from Spotify.

    I'd imagine they're trying to do this in other territories too...

  • On the post: How Labels Pulling Out Of Spotify Are Doing Massive Harm To Themselves

    alex ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2011 @ 01:15am

    Re:

    wat?

  • On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing

    alex ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2011 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re:

    So:

    Transportation = Content
    Buggy Whip Manufacturers = Record Labels
    New Fast Cars = Digital Files

    Everyone wants Transportation(content). Increasingly people want New Fast Cars (digital). If the Buggy Whip makers don't make the New Fast Cars, they're going to suffer. Cool. Nice analogy...

    The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account that the Buggy Whip Manufacturers own the transportation. It's not like there's competition from new car manufacturers making different cars. It's like they're cloning the Buggy Whips and selling them with new body kits.

    The analogy shows the Buggy Whip Manufacturers need to adapt but it misses out the point that companies selling new cars without their permission are morally wrong, because they aren't theirs to sell.

    Anyway, sorry. The accuracy of the analogy isn't the point of the article and I'm probably just being picky here. =]

  • On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing

    alex ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2011 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re:

    I see your point but most of the time I prefer to just talk about the subject rather than abstracting it to a fictitious situation (which can often be persuasive one way or the other to fir a point that is being made). I'm not saying that's the case with Mike's article (I don't think it is) - just saying how I feel about analogies. =]

  • On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing

    alex ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2011 @ 10:59am

    Re:

    I was thinking the same thing about the buggy whip analogy. It's not that there's a different product on the market that's more popular; people still want the same product, a product the content industries own.

    The "externality" point is very interesting though. I hadn't really thought about that before. If I write a book about my favourite music then sell the book, I am profiting from the music, but I'm not harming the makers of the music. Morally fine.

    If I write an ad-funded blog post about my favourite music and include links to infringing copies of that music - that seems to me to be morally wrong.

    The Google situation is slightly different: if you search for music and only find infringing links, you could compare it to the blog situation above; they are profiting from advertising and linking to illegal copies. At the same time, the content owners can provide legal links and as for the infringing links to be taken down. If only legal links show up when you search Google, you would have to say the service they are providing to the content owners is a valuable one.

  • On the post: As Expected, RIAA Threatens Site That Claims To Let You Sell Used MP3s

    alex ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2011 @ 09:57am

    I think that if mp3s had a resale value more people would be encouraged to buy them. Buying a CD, listening to it 10 times, then selling it is perfectly acceptable, but not so with mp3s... Our digital collections have no resale value at all.

    I wrote some thoughts about this very thing here.

  • On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright

    alex ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2011 @ 09:24am

    nice post. excellent point.

  • On the post: The Future Under SOPA: Group Too Lazy To Police Own Copyrights Seeks To Block Access To Grooveshark's Legal Music Service

    alex ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2011 @ 09:12am

    Grooveshark is an interesting case. I don't think it's quite right to say they function the same as YouTube do. They use the same DMCA safe-harbours to justify the legality of their model, but they also don't take any steps to prevent music owned by companies who don't wish to have their music on the service from being uploaded (or re-uploaded following a take-down request). YouTube use a "ContentID" fingerprinting technology which allows them to ID tracks uploaded which should not be there and they are automatically blocked.

    Grooveshark offer payments to those labels who want their catalogs on there but, as a colleague of mine discovered recently, the rates they offer are much worse than Spotify for example, and it's a simple take-it-or-leave-it kind of deal.

    In other words, they are offering far below average per-stream rates, and no way to opt-out other than to continually search the site for tracks and send take-down notices.

    I'm 100% against censoring the internet but I don't see Grooveshark's current business model as being a particularly good thing for the industry, regardless of its legal status.

  • On the post: Record Labels: When You Make It Impossible For People To Pay You, You Drive Them To Unauthorized Versions

    alex ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 08:18am

    Re: Re: Can we please fix this...

    Over 99% of music ever recorded is controlled by the majors? Where did you get that figure from? I'm sure that's not right.

    The label from the quoted blog post, for example, does not appear to be a sublabel of a major, which kind of makes the point. http://www.discogs.com/label/Dynasty+Recordings

    How can you assume that the people that run that label won't admit their mistakes and only want stricter levels of copyright enforcement?!

  • On the post: Record Labels: When You Make It Impossible For People To Pay You, You Drive Them To Unauthorized Versions

    alex ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 07:07am

    Can we please fix this...

    "Problem is, the labels will never admit that their own actions resulted in unauthorized file sharing. No way, no how. To them file sharing is only the result of one thing and one thing only: failure to enforce copyright laws to as strict a level as possible."

    Sorry Mike, I know I've made this point on here before but it's really not OK to suggest that all record labels are the same based on the actions of 4 of them. It's the same as saying all journalists share the same values and behaviours as News Corp.

    Techdirt is one of my favourite blogs and I feel bad that I usually only post when I don't agree with something, but as someone who works in the music industry, this is the one repeated thing that I read on here that winds me up - because I know lots and lots of labels to whom this simply doesn't apply.

  • On the post: UK Court Upholds Its First Web Censorship Order: BT Has 14 Days To Block Access To Newzbin2 & Gets To Pay For The Privelege

    alex ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2011 @ 05:49am

    Bad news for the UK =[

    Slightly off-topic, but can we come up for a name for the big movie, tv and music companies other than "the entertainment industry"? That term encompasses thousands of decent companies that have no interest at all in this ruling or any kind of net censorship.

  • On the post: Massive Hike In Fees For Venues Playing Music In The UK

    alex ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2011 @ 09:13am

    credible source?

    I can't find anything else about this story, including on the PPL site. Where is this from?

  • On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does…

    alex ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2011 @ 03:41am

    Nice article. Very interesting. But...

    One thing that really bothers me though is saying that it's a myth that record labels have the best interests of artists at heart. Shall we also say that journalists are unscrupulous fiends who will hack into phones to get a story?

    EMI is not a typical record label. They are one of the 4 majors and the way they do business should not tarnish the thousands of independent labels' business ethics.

    Sorry to rant but I read that a lot and it bugs me.

  • On the post: UMG Watermarks Audiophile Files, Pisses Off Paying Customers

    alex ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2011 @ 08:16am

    Re: Re: This is confusing...

    heh.

    I work in digital music - but I'm doing my best to stay positive in these crazy times =]

  • On the post: UMG Watermarks Audiophile Files, Pisses Off Paying Customers

    alex ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2011 @ 08:14am

    Re: Re: This is confusing...

    hmm.. i'd guess they're fully aware they can't sue a store whose customer has shared a track. I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't be watermarking to degrade the quality of the file. One of the most important features of a watermark is that it needs to be inaudible (this one was obviously noticed as it's in a piece of subtle music being listened to by an audiophile - most likely on a high-end stereo)

    My guess is that they just want to track which channels their files leak from.

  • On the post: UMG Watermarks Audiophile Files, Pisses Off Paying Customers

    alex ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2011 @ 06:48am

    This is confusing...

    I understand the point of watermarking files and I know that some download stores do it. The thing I don't get is why UMG would watermark a file they pass on to a download store.

    If UMG later find the track on a torrent, and read the watermark which tells them the file was from passionato, what does that give them? They still don't know who shared it, only via what channel it was shared.

    Very odd.



    ps. lol @ your analogy =]

  • On the post: It's Not About 'Free,' It's About Sharing

    alex ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2011 @ 06:46am

    Re: All analogies stink, especially when sheer fiction.

    I agree with you completely.

    "Let me illustrate by way of an analogy of a made-up situation where the bad guys in my story hold an oppressive monopoly on drinking water."

    ffs

Next >>