OK, so if I wanted to store my iTunes-bought movies on megaupload to keep an offsite backup (not sure if MU allowed this as I never used it), how would MPAA classify those? They surely can't be infringing if I own the originals and am using MegaUpload. Again, I assume files could be protected to prevent anyone downloading). Isn't infringement a mechanical process rather than an electronically stored copy? How can files themselves be infringing?
I work on a Canadian University Campus and we're already starting to see real discontent in student bodies across the country.
The only thing idiotic approaches like this do is drive more people to pirate. Nothing in new in what I just said it's just tiresome having to keep beating the same drum in an apparently deaf world! I don't know how Mike hasn't gone insane by now!
I must have missed that one. That's absolutely stunning. That ruling implies that no-one is ever allowed to take a picture of a London bus in front of the houses of parliament and photoshop them ever again? I assume this decision is being appealed...
Another perfect example of this is Rock Band. I've paid crap loads for the downloadable songs over the last 3 years, because it's content that actually has value to me. They could have given me the game for free and still made a ton off my purchases.
So is Roger Ebert a leech? What about Fox "news", CNN and every other news outlet in the world? They create no more or less than the author of this site. He's creating articles, based on his own opinions and observations which (as you must have noticed) are shared by thousands of other people. Your opinion is no more or less valid than Mike's and unless you're willing to provide proof of your creativity then your argument rings hollow and meaningless.
Just to cover the same ground as others, the law is fundamentally flawed. The simple fact is that your average 12 year old (and probably younger) knows a DAMN sight more about the internet, its pros and cons and how to get around any ridiculous "over 13" policies than the idiots who passed them as an attention-seeking right-wing vote-grab in the first place!
I think you guys in North America (assuming...) would call this cotton balls... it's essentially the same thing, just not pre-balled... you have to "ball" it yourself... mmm... this got decidedly smutty!
That's absolute bollocks. People laugh at your 1st amendment because it's only applied in cases which suit your government of the time. There's only the perception of freedom of speech in the US (or anywhere else. Just because it's written down in a fancy document that you hold as some sort of beacon of your superiority doesn't mean that in actual, practical terms it really means anything.
Do you believe that, if a police officer were to come and speak to you for some reason, you should be able to say "Go f*** yourself you pug-eyed sack of sh*t"? I mean it's freedom of speech, so why wouldn't you?
See I disagree with one of your points. You cannot "speak to the world at the click of a button". Not really. You have the "potential" to speak to the world at the click of a button, but when this fact is stated in this way, it makes it sound like I can post my music and automatically, 50 million people will hear it. This is obviously not the case. There's still a lot of leg work to be done and a LOT of money to be spent promoting. I think that's the only part of the large machine that I see as being valid and sustainable, the promotional aspect. It should obviously change to leverage technology more often, but simply stating that, to paraphrase, "you've got the internet, you can hit your market" is nonsense.
I'm an advocate of Mike's opinions, in the very large part. I got to wondering today though, if we expect musicians (and other artists) to spend huge amounts of time figuring out new business models and new and interesting ways to connect with fans or deliver "content" (that still makes me flinch, denigrating music by calling it mere "content" but...), won't their creativity suffer? I mean, the majority of the musicians I know are not marketing-savvy people or bleeding-edge techies, but they're effing good musicians who deliver good songs. How does someone who is a great musician thrive in a (proposed) market where the current model is completely obsolete? Thom Yorke is in a privileged position in that he was already very rich before he started to break the mould in terms of content-delivery. It's not nearly so easy for an independent artists to do the same thing and have really strong exposure.
I'd be interesting in hearing what Mike thinks about what I see as a gap in the (otherwise very sound) logic.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by cgibinladen.
Infringing?
OK, so if I wanted to store my iTunes-bought movies on megaupload to keep an offsite backup (not sure if MU allowed this as I never used it), how would MPAA classify those? They surely can't be infringing if I own the originals and am using MegaUpload. Again, I assume files could be protected to prevent anyone downloading). Isn't infringement a mechanical process rather than an electronically stored copy? How can files themselves be infringing?
Re: Re:
Yeh cos it's all about you.
I work on a Canadian University Campus and we're already starting to see real discontent in student bodies across the country.
The only thing idiotic approaches like this do is drive more people to pirate. Nothing in new in what I just said it's just tiresome having to keep beating the same drum in an apparently deaf world! I don't know how Mike hasn't gone insane by now!
Re: Re: UK Case?
I must have missed that one. That's absolutely stunning. That ruling implies that no-one is ever allowed to take a picture of a London bus in front of the houses of parliament and photoshop them ever again? I assume this decision is being appealed...
UK Case?
What was the UK case? Does anyone have a link to it (preferably techdirt!)
Another perfect example of this is Rock Band. I've paid crap loads for the downloadable songs over the last 3 years, because it's content that actually has value to me. They could have given me the game for free and still made a ton off my purchases.
Re:
So is Roger Ebert a leech? What about Fox "news", CNN and every other news outlet in the world? They create no more or less than the author of this site. He's creating articles, based on his own opinions and observations which (as you must have noticed) are shared by thousands of other people. Your opinion is no more or less valid than Mike's and unless you're willing to provide proof of your creativity then your argument rings hollow and meaningless.
Re:
I can't remember that far back mate...
Just to cover the same ground as others, the law is fundamentally flawed. The simple fact is that your average 12 year old (and probably younger) knows a DAMN sight more about the internet, its pros and cons and how to get around any ridiculous "over 13" policies than the idiots who passed them as an attention-seeking right-wing vote-grab in the first place!
Re: Re: Entitlement
I think you guys in North America (assuming...) would call this cotton balls... it's essentially the same thing, just not pre-balled... you have to "ball" it yourself... mmm... this got decidedly smutty!
Re: Re:
That's absolute bollocks. People laugh at your 1st amendment because it's only applied in cases which suit your government of the time. There's only the perception of freedom of speech in the US (or anywhere else. Just because it's written down in a fancy document that you hold as some sort of beacon of your superiority doesn't mean that in actual, practical terms it really means anything.
Do you believe that, if a police officer were to come and speak to you for some reason, you should be able to say "Go f*** yourself you pug-eyed sack of sh*t"? I mean it's freedom of speech, so why wouldn't you?
In a long list of dumb lawsuits, this might just be the dumbest!
re: Democracy
"Land of the Free"... I've always loved that one...
Re: Re:
You obviously don't have kids.
Re: Re:
See I disagree with one of your points. You cannot "speak to the world at the click of a button". Not really. You have the "potential" to speak to the world at the click of a button, but when this fact is stated in this way, it makes it sound like I can post my music and automatically, 50 million people will hear it. This is obviously not the case. There's still a lot of leg work to be done and a LOT of money to be spent promoting. I think that's the only part of the large machine that I see as being valid and sustainable, the promotional aspect. It should obviously change to leverage technology more often, but simply stating that, to paraphrase, "you've got the internet, you can hit your market" is nonsense.
I'm an advocate of Mike's opinions, in the very large part. I got to wondering today though, if we expect musicians (and other artists) to spend huge amounts of time figuring out new business models and new and interesting ways to connect with fans or deliver "content" (that still makes me flinch, denigrating music by calling it mere "content" but...), won't their creativity suffer? I mean, the majority of the musicians I know are not marketing-savvy people or bleeding-edge techies, but they're effing good musicians who deliver good songs. How does someone who is a great musician thrive in a (proposed) market where the current model is completely obsolete? Thom Yorke is in a privileged position in that he was already very rich before he started to break the mould in terms of content-delivery. It's not nearly so easy for an independent artists to do the same thing and have really strong exposure.
I'd be interesting in hearing what Mike thinks about what I see as a gap in the (otherwise very sound) logic.