David Muir 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (169) comment rss

  • On the post: Canadian Real Estate Agents: Without Us, Poor Homeowners Would Be Getting Attacked And Killed

    David Muir ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 05:33pm

    Realtor Here

    I always get a little depressed at how much hatred there is for real estate agents whenever items like this hit the news. I think that's mostly because Internet denizens are on the leading edge of trends. They see that open access to information is the norm now and will be the future of EVERYTHING. They are also highly intelligent and motivated people who can take all the information they get and do their own real estate transactions.

    My business model is based around personal service and education (teaching people the ins and outs of a real estate transaction). Maybe that means I am augmenting what they have learned online. Maybe that means I teach them so much that they will handle their next transaction on their own. I know some agents get angry when they lose a client like this. I think it is fantastic. If it happens, I have done my job well. I even have one client who went on to become a real estate agent himself because I gave him such insight into the business. Mostly though, I create happy clients who generate eager referrals for me. That's the way I build my business.

  • On the post: Boxee Ramps Up Its Fight To Stop The FCC From Letting Cable Companies Effectively Break Its Device

    David Muir ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 09:29pm

    History Repeats

    Early cable television ventures were actually "community antennae". The guy with the best antennae in the area picked up the far off signals and shared them with his neighbors via cables.

    Of course the broadcasters screamed "piracy" or whatever the equivalent in-vogue epithet was at the time. Eventually the cable companies were swimming in money and they could work out a very lucrative deal with the broadcasters.

    Did they forget this part of their history when they see what Boxee and similar "integration" technologies could do for cable's future?

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    David Muir ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Robbery is different from burglary is different from shoplifting is different from embezzlement is different from fraud... yet the results are the same: someone had money or property taken FROM them -- money or property they can no longer use. That is what makes these all forms of "stealing".

    You can't go ahead and lump copyright infringement in with them too because someone acquired something that they are not legally entitled to have. That logic makes driving with an expired license the same as grand theft auto, because you are enjoying the use of a vehicle that you are not legally entitled to use.

  • On the post: UK ISPs Lose Their Challenge To The Digital Economy Act; Entertainment Industry Responds Condescendingly

    David Muir ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2012 @ 05:12am

    Utility Companies

    You need a license to operate a television in Britain, right? I suppose with that kind of thinking, they were predisposed to having such a law and a ruling like this to support the law.

    Still, I wonder if the electrical power company will be held responsible next because without them, the bits would not flow down the series of tubes that the ISPs provide. Should they not also contribute to the education of UK youth? What better way to educate than to plunge them into darkness?

  • On the post: Louis Vuitton's International Tour Of Trademark Bullying Runs Smack Dab Into UPenn Law School Who Explains Trademark Law In Return

    David Muir ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2012 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: "We'll absolutely cease and desist. Yes, sir."

    You don't need to guess and feel almost certain. Read the Penn letter. It was "Steven Barnes, the Associate Dean for Communications at the Law School".

    But it's true that the LV lawyer was likely bullying (as the tone of their letter suggests) when he extracted a promise of compliance from Mr. Barnes.

  • On the post: Louis Vuitton's International Tour Of Trademark Bullying Runs Smack Dab Into UPenn Law School Who Explains Trademark Law In Return

    David Muir ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2012 @ 06:30am

    "We'll absolutely cease and desist. Yes, sir."

    Communications people: "no comment" sounds like a cop-out, but it is far better than committing your organization to a course of action. The peons in a company are usually advised to direct all questions from the public and press to the communications officer. I would think that similar advice would be given to the communications officer: If you get a financial inquiry, direct it to the accountants. If you get a legal inquiry, direct it to the lawyers.

  • On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors

    David Muir ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2012 @ 10:08am

    Re:

    The legality or illegality of the act itself is not what should be at issue. We should be considering the free speech and freedom of expression issue: Is the depiction of vile and reprehensible things in written words, moreover the fictionalized depiction of such things, something that one party should be allowed to force another party to "censor"?

    We'll hear the argument that censorship only happens by the government. So maybe this is technically not censorship. But we've seen how little distinction there is between big corporate interests and the government. We've also seen how a government-supported monopoly supports a lot of these big corporations (like the patents held by PayPal). So one way or another, this is very much like censorship, if not actually censorship.

  • On the post: Josef Anvil's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    David Muir ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2012 @ 04:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Okay. Let's say the kids I know understand the differences perfectly. AND THEY DON'T CARE.

    It doesn't mean they are illiterate. It means that they have come to expect and trust that the technologies are woven together and integral to all aspects of their own lives.

    Yes there is a certain over-concentration and reliance on some proprietary stuff... leaving them open to abused by central authorities. But there's also a ton of decentralization, redundancy, and "routing around failure" that goes on too.

  • On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure

    David Muir ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Bad windowing model

    Oh dear. I am usually too naive to think this way. But it is probably the reason that there's vested interest in staying with the status quo and lobbying to get the world around them to change.

    Making any particular production "unprofitable" is a counter-intuitive motivation that I can't really wrap my head around. Yet we've seen enough examples of Hollywood and record company accounting that it is almost certainly at play here.

  • On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure

    David Muir ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The best business models should make the most money."

    There is nothing to dispute in this statement. It is not incorrect. However, as you point out, the thinking behind the statement is flawed.

    The most money (sustainable profits) cannot be made by creating artificial scarcity and then legislating or litigating customers into compliance.

    The most money cannot be made by refusing to adapt to a changing business environment.

    The most money can be made by innovating and being a LEADER in an industry.

    The way forward is risky for sure, and we know that today's Hollywood is somewhat risk averse. But as with all things the big risk can reap a big reward.

    What confuses me is that Hollywood does this already: a small fraction of big budget films succeed so wildly that they make up for any failures. Couldn't they try ten different business models and see which ones consistently make the most money?

  • On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?

    David Muir ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 01:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Funny you should bring up this example. In my world (real estate), I purchase subscriptions to magazines that are delivered to doctors' offices. So the doctor's not even paying but I get the exposure of my name on the cover of the magazine and the magazine charges me very little because they get the benefits you outlined.

  • On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?

    David Muir ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The question is always the same: If you make the shows available online for, say, $1 download (or put them on Hulu... or whatever the idea may be), how many people drop your higher price product to go for the cheaper download / DVD / streaming option?

    This is a very legitimate question. And the sad answer, in my opinion, for the content industry is: a lot and more as time goes on. However, it is always better to cannibalize from your own business than to allow competitors to eat it alive.

    Also, the outmoded business model will eventually die anyway, so why not hasten its demise and become kings of the new business model? It may be too late of course, but if you sold to every person willing to pay the lower amount, you'd certainly have a very robust and profitable business on your hands.

  • On the post: Commerce Department Postpones 'Africa IP Forum' After People Point Out How One-Sided It Is

    David Muir ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 05:46am

    Re:

    I am looking into the future right now. The specific event is shrouded in mist. But I clearly see that figuring out who the stakeholders in an issue are, then inviting them all to participate makes the event eminently reasonable.

  • On the post: Reddit Writes A Law: First Draft Of The Free Internet Act Emerges

    David Muir ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2012 @ 09:03am

    Illegal Content

    I notice the text of the bill is already starting to get tied in knots over the concept of what "illegal content" is. Defining illegal content, then censoring only that, is going to be an extremely difficult thing to accomplish -- if it is even desirable.

    I remember the discussions we had in Philosophy about Moral Relativism. Are their any acts or depictions of acts that are universally condemned? We often point to child abuse and murder as being universally "wrong". But then you see that the definitions of each have to be nuanced and defined because even in those extreme cases there are exceptions that people want. Examples: 1. Teens sending sexually suggestive texts to each other probably needs to be an exception to the broad definition of "child porn" that the bill currently includes. 2. Capital punishment is state-sponsored murder and has checks and balances. But a video recording of the prisoner's execution could easily be "illegal" because it was not publicly released.

    My feeling is that most content -- especially written word content -- should be allowed no matter how vile the subject matter is. As AC recently said here : "I'd rather live in a world where global transparency and honesty is more important than my personal safety -- we stand a better chance of surviving the future that way."

  • On the post: Linsanity… At The Trademark Office

    David Muir ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 03:28am

    ...Harvard (who did want him, but doesn't do academic scholarships and isn't known for its basketball program)...

    I'm pretty sure Harvard gives academic scholarships ( http://www.scholarship.harvard.edu/ ). It's athletic scholarships they don't offer.

  • On the post: Sony Says Raising Prices On Whitney Houston Music Was A 'Mistake'

    David Muir ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2012 @ 05:38am

    Re: Here's a fun thought exercise

    Why exclude Funeral Homes and Cemeteries from the calculation? :-)

    Indeed, as copyright is extended and extended, the pool of content created by artists who are no longer with us will be bigger than the pool created by the living. If they ever get their act together and use technology to take advantage of "The Long Tail" like Amazon has... the content industry will undoubtedly make more off of the dead than the living.

  • On the post: How Publishers Repeated The Same Mistake As Record Labels: DRM Obsession Gave Amazon Dominant Position

    David Muir ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Edit

    Absolutely. I just think Mike was pointing out what the content folks were focused on... and as misguided as they may be, they were not focused on increasing infringement.

    Ironically, as has been pointed out: no matter where their focus was, the result in the end was indeed increased infringement.

  • On the post: How Publishers Repeated The Same Mistake As Record Labels: DRM Obsession Gave Amazon Dominant Position

    David Muir ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Re: Edit

    Absolutely. I just think Mike was pointing out what the content folks were focused on... and as misguided as they may be, they were not focused on increasing infringement.

    Ironically, as has been pointed out: no matter where their focus was, the result in the end was indeed increased infringement.

  • On the post: How Publishers Repeated The Same Mistake As Record Labels: DRM Obsession Gave Amazon Dominant Position

    David Muir ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2012 @ 11:12am

    Edit

    Sorry I'm so late to notice this, but I don't think anyone else has pointed it out yet: "...the effort had to be focused on somehow "protecting" works and ratcheting up infringement..."

    While it may be true that the legacy content distributors have ratcheted up infringement in recent years (due to copyright extensions and clawing back from the public domain)... I believe in this sentence you mean "ratcheting up enforcement".

  • On the post: The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Large & Growing… Not Shrinking

    David Muir ( profile ), 30 Jan, 2012 @ 07:43am

    Re:

    Wow. Just... wow.

    Google and other companies taking billions of jobs and thousands of dollars off content creator companies.


    I think you mean that the jobs and dollars are shifting from one place to another. This is actually pretty common in the historical sense: industries rise and fall. I also think that the studies show that during periods of economic shrinkage (like we've seen) the first thing to go was always non-essential spending. Yet entertainment spending has kept pace. Thus, when people can afford less, they are spending more on entertainment. It is an UNPRECEDENTED time for content creators. By the way, when you said "content creator companies" I think you meant "content distribution middlemen".

    Finally, about that bubble that you predict will eventually fall in on itself... The number of people NOT paying has ALWAYS been bigger than the number paying. Millions listen to the radio and a portion of them go out an buy the music. Many more people used to watch a movie on TV than pay to see the movie in a theater. Many more people read Dickens in serial form in the penny press than bought the books when they were compiled. And those newspapers and books were more widely shared -- bought once and read by many people.

Next >>