cram 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (34) comment rss

  • On the post: Copyright As An Engine Of Free Expression?

    cram ( profile ), 16 May, 2008 @ 01:58am

    "I'm merely pointing out the economic realities -- which is that a product with an infinite supply gets driven down to a price of zero -- and that's a good thing."

    That "economic reality" is grounded in...you guessed it, piracy. Somehow you always evade the prickly issue of what happens to this theory of yours when a creator doesn't authorize copies for distribution. Now if you are going to say all content is free the moment someone creates it and that no one must have to pay to consume it, then I have nothing to say.

  • On the post: Copyright As An Engine Of Free Expression?

    cram ( profile ), 15 May, 2008 @ 07:07pm

    Hi Mike

    "Movie theaters don't sell movies. They sell an experience. You still eat out at restaurants even though you can eat (cheaper!) at home, right? Why? Because the overall quality of the experience is better. Same is true of theaters."

    No, that analogy does not hold because while you can cook at home, as opposed to letting the restaurant cook for you, you can't make a movie at home - you are at the mercy of the film company and by extension the film community. Movie watching, like listening to music, is strictly consumption. You have no active role as a content creator. Since the film/music people do all the work to keep you entertained, they expect to be compensated. Now why do you find that unacceptable?

    "That's wrong. Look at the demand for the product itself. Perhaps without copyright, the producers would have figured out a *cheaper* way to make a better product."

    What the...? How did you even come up with that? Making movies costs a lot of money, mainly because the people who invest their talent, creativity, originality and/or genius expect financial rewards, upfront. Moviemaking involves considerable financial risk to the backer, and copyright is in place because it aims to protect the producer's right to recoup his investment and future profits.

  • On the post: Up-and-Coming Label Illustrates How to Sell Infinite Goods in the Internet Age

    cram ( profile ), 09 May, 2008 @ 05:02am

    CDs

    Hi Mike

    So you are not against selling CDS? Man, I never. I always thought you were against selling music on CDs.

  • On the post: Up-and-Coming Label Illustrates How to Sell Infinite Goods in the Internet Age

    cram ( profile ), 08 May, 2008 @ 10:05pm

    CDs

    Hi Pitabred

    Techdirt people want CDs to disappear because they don't fit into their infinite goods plan for musicians. That's why you'll see physical media being dissed all the time here.

  • On the post: The Non-Controversy: No, Wikipedia Authors Should Not Get Paid

    cram ( profile ), 08 May, 2008 @ 09:08pm

    Is this a first?

    Hi all

    Would like to know if this this the first time someone's printing any or all parts of Wikipedia. I certainly hope more and more people come forward to release Wikipedia in print format because it would be a lot more useful than people think. Wiktionary should be next on the list.

    Another point: People who sell printed Wikipedias in countries like India would be doing a great service, because the vast majority of people don't have Net access. And most of the encyclopedias available are either too expensive, or not uptodate, or both.

  • On the post: Trent Reznor Gives Away New Album As A Completely Free Download

    cram ( profile ), 06 May, 2008 @ 02:21am

    The Trent Reznor Community

    Hi Mike

    Must be one helluva self-congratulatory day for you, what with Trent Reznor going down the free music road once again, and this time with a vengeance. An entire album! Goodness! Maybe it's a supreme arrogance on Trent's part, to decide he doesn't need any label/company/association/marketing arm between him and his fans.

    I'm sure he's going to make a pretty packet from physical media sales as well, especially if it has a lot to offer apart from the music. Though I'm still not convinced this model could work for everyone, or even a sizeable number of bands/performers, it's a start, and a good one as the middlemen are being cut out. Let's see how it pans out.

    Perhaps Trent could become the center of gravity for all those who want to follow his and (Mike's) lead. Social networking for the freemusicians.

  • On the post: Don't Read Too Much Into Radiohead's Claim That It Won't Offer Music For Free Again

    cram ( profile ), 01 May, 2008 @ 08:50pm

    Hi

    That comment was from me, not some anonymous coward.

  • On the post: Don't Read Too Much Into Radiohead's Claim That It Won't Offer Music For Free Again

    cram ( profile ), 01 May, 2008 @ 01:57am

    To sell or not to sell

    Hi Mike

    There you go again. I read a related link in which you say:

    "Continuing to offer fans an option in terms of how they want to consume and purchase the music only makes sense. It's not as if the music is suddenly not going to be available on various file sharing sites."

    I'd llike to know what your position is: should bands sell music or give it away for free? Because you seem to be advocating both.

    Also, you mention the file sharing sites, which are clearly abetting piracy. Aren't you gonna say more, on why existence of piracy and our inability to do anything about it is the basis for your "give music away free and make money from tours" model?

  • On the post: How Do People Find The Time To Watch Television?

    cram ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2008 @ 05:35pm

    While I agree with the author that spending time on the Net is far more stimulating than watching TV, I would like to know what percentage of people on the Internet are active participants. Is exchanging mindless messages on Twitter better than watching National Geographic? How many people actually contribute to socially beneficial projects like Wikipedia or Techdirt?

  • On the post: Things I Was Wrong About

    cram ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2008 @ 04:05am

    Hi Mike

    Thanks for taking the trouble to respond.

    I get your point, but I still disagree (you're exasperated, I know).

    The comic strip creator has the advantage of selling the same stuff that he gives out free online. He doesn't have to go on tour, set up special web sites to hang out with fans...all he has to do is send his stuff to a publisher and wait for the money to roll in.

    But the poor musician and the poor musician alone is called upon (by the likes of you) to look at a whole gamut of other options to make money, simply because tech's grown to such an extent that he can't live off just his music (by which I mean his songs on CDs -- forget the touring, t-shirts and other stuff).

    Do you see my point? The artist can just keep churning out comic strips, the writer stories, and do nothing else and still hope to make millions, but the onus is suddenly on the musician to do a whole lot of other things in order to stay alive. And why? Simply because of the elephant in the room - piracy.

    But for the rampant piracy, and how easy its has become, and how completely blase we all are about digital theft, you wouldn't be spouting the virtues of such a model. You can turn around and take the high ground stating you don't support unauthorized file sharing and all that, but 99.99% of the world's busy ripping files off the net, and they are the reason why you are advocating the "music should be free or download" line.

    Great to have engaged with you. Thanks.

  • On the post: Things I Was Wrong About

    cram ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2008 @ 02:15am

    "You don't see how getting the music into the hands of more people can help the artist?!? Go read that link I put in my last comment. Or look at what many, many musicians are doing today in embracing free music to give themselves a much larger audience to whom they are able to sell scarce goods, like concert tickets."

    Honestly Mike, how many concert tickets can a band sell? And can all musicians live off concert tickets alone? Don't they have a right to the prospect of making a living through selling their creative work, simply because tech has changed the rules of the game, nay changed the game itself?

    I think what you're trying to say is: get the audience before the pirates get them. Let's keep in mind that it's the pirates who hold the key here, without trying to take the high moral ground by saying we are against unauthorized file sharing and stuff.

  • On the post: Things I Was Wrong About

    cram ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2008 @ 02:02am

    For instance, compare a comic strip creator with a musician. The former can put out all his creative work on the web, give it away free, and still pay his bills because people would be willing to buy his work in printed form.

    Cut to musician: what happens when he puts out his song on the web? Everyone downloads it, goes home. Musician rots.

    I guess much depends on the medium of consumption.

  • On the post: Things I Was Wrong About

    cram ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2008 @ 01:35am

    Re: Re: Wrong and right

    "JK Rowling's only scarce good are her Harry Potter books.

    No. Those are the only scarce goods she's selling now. That doesn't mean those are the only scarce goods she has."

    But that's exactly my point. She doesn't need to sell anything for the rest of her life. That's how musicians and music companies used to operate; they were rewarded for their creative work. Now they cannot hope to get rewarded for composing a beautiful piece of music, because no one wants to buy a CD anymore.

    "No. I'm not defending or justifying unauthorized use in the slightest. I'm saying that more and more artists are recognizing that they can use *authorized* free distribution and promotion to their advantage. And they are. And that will leave those who want to charge in a bit of hot water."

    I don't see how "free distribution" can help the artist. Earlier, TV and radio promoted musicians, but people still went out in droves to buy records or CDs of their favorite bands, which made the musicians rich. That model is doomed only because tech has made it easy to make copies and no one can do a damn thing about piracy, regardless of how many kids the RIAA goes after. Radiohead tried something experimental, but will it work for all bands?

    "How am I not according music the same importance? In fact, the majority of the examples and explanations I give around here *are* focused on music."

    What I meant was you seem to suggest, almost always in the case of musicians, that they should embrace the "give it away free and explore ther avenues" approach. Would you suggest a poet or painter or photographer or writer do that?

  • On the post: Things I Was Wrong About

    cram ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2008 @ 12:19am

    Wrong and right

    Interesting debate.

    Mike

    What about creative artists whose only scarce good are their creative work? JK Rowling's only scarce good are her Harry Potter books. And she and her publisher make tons of money simply because people are willing to buy the printed books. Even if the entire Potter canon is available as public domain, people would still buy the printed books simply because for a whole lot of people, that's convenient.

    But that's hardly the case with music. Especially because of its brevity. Almost everyone consumes music in its natural unit form, the track. And tech has reduced the cost of distributing music mainly because of the pirates. This does not justify their act, which is what I think you are trying to do.

    Somehow, you are not according music the same importance as other creative arts, which are not similarly hampered by advances in technology that reduce the cost of making copies to virtually zero.

    In another post you brought up the case of WSJ which is not "part of the conversation" because it keeps all its material behnd a firewall. Perhaps all the insight and valuable information is the scarce good that it wants to profit from, because even if everyone is giving away financial info for free, no one has what WSJ does. And that makes it scarce, and which is why they are most likely to continue with their subscription-based business.

    PS: You guys are doing a fantastic job. I'm an avid Techdirt reader.