Even if your numbers were correct, which is not the case, all your argument is based on one assumption that is completely removed from the reality.
This law proposal only contemplates copies you are already allowed to do. Like copying any media not protected with DRM, for your backup, or to use in another device. The reasoning behind this, is that the copyright industry (including authors, editors, collection societies) need to be "compensated" for those copies, on the assumption that each copy is a "lost sale" and that that is loss.
This ignores completely any and all copies obtained by any other method, either downloads or a loaned cd, dvd or book. This levy will NOT give anyone any extra rights. Nothing at all. There's no consideration of the consumer side of the question. This proposal only updates the devices and the values, and dismisses any author's right to distribute it's content for free or with no restrictions on copy. Under this proposal, the collecting societies would have the right to collect levies on those works, sharing those results only between their members. They don't allow their members the use of CC licenses.
More, there's no provision on the original proposal, for the growth in capacity of the devices, in 3 or 4 years, we would be paying a levy 2x bigger then the original price of the device. (In response to this, the responsible inserted a 6% max levy based on the price and 2 years evaluation period, under the impression that this was a reasonable enough suggestion).
Pressed on presenting proof of the "loss" suffered, they presented a study, with extremely high percentages of copies being made. Pressed to divulge the study, it was found that they have used the worst possible method. Out of an unspecified number of interviews they selected a universe of 1,000 persons that confirmed that they do copies, and based their study on their answers "ONLY".
This law legitimizes nothing on the consumer side.
There's a lot more involving the complete opacity of how the division will be made, which authors and which editors will be paid or how much. There's no provision on professional storage, like a data center. There's no provision on educational or scientific usages like in schools, universities or research centers. There's no provision for personal backup units, or even for cloud based services.
This law has one and only one purpose, save the collection agency from bankruptcy, caused by many years of bad management and embezzlers.
The abuses mentioned in the article and the low adherence of the artists and authors is mostly based on the suspicions of many of their members that they will never see any of this purported boon. Many of the names on that list, have confirmed privately that they didn't give their approval, but couldn't go public for fear of reprisals.
Hope this clarifies somewhat your confusion about this.
I loved the experience, and in the 3 days I had the privilege to use it, ended up meeting people that I would never ever have the chance to find, that share many of the same cultural references that I do.
Now, locked behind an arbitrary border, that makes absolutely no sense in the Internet, I am locked out.
Yes, I could use one of the many ways to break that limitation. But, why should I? I would feel like a thief, I would know that I was trespassing. And that would remove all value from the experience, and from the communication I could have there, because I wouldn't dare sharing anything about myself, because the rooms are monitored, and all conversations are stored. So, no, I don't feel like going there anymore, because I am a pariah in their terms.
So, it is a GREAT service if you happen to live in the "right" side of the world. Not for the us that are outside.
I can agree with almost all that, and it would surely be awesome, especially if the offers would be available internationally.
But in a world where you have digital content available in online stores, that you can't buy if you aren't in the correct country, or if you happen to want to pay with the wrong payment service, I don't see Turntable having a chance.
For 3 days much fun was had by me. Yes, I really did like the service, seeing a lot of room to grow and increase.
Now, as said, I can access it through proxy's or whatever, but, I can't no longer invite friends to it, I can't feel comfortable tweeting about the experience I'm having, I feel rather conspicuous using it through a proxy and having it connected to my Facebook account. Sure I can go and listen to music, but, that is only 1/10th of the experience.
The rooms are monitored, maybe not all, but some, and you'll never know which, so you can't just talk freely in the chat, sharing data about you that may be deemed in violation of the TOS. Even the uploading of music, becomes questionable if you are a trespasser. If can't just share the musics you are playing, openly and freely on your Facebook, to entice your friends to join, begin a conversation, or simply brag, because you are trespassing, what's the point really?
Ok, on a perfect world, your dream would be awesome, but until the underlying conditions that are contributing to the closing of turntable are addressed, their service will always be limited to some elites, that happen to live in some specific piece of ground.
Anyway, turntable had everything to be GREAT. Now, they can still be a good service to some.
I will remember how great those 3 days were. You guys have fun with it now...
-SPA (Portuguese Authors Society) a collecting agency, is rooting for this.
-There's a new levy being imposed on all devices capable to store or reproduce copies, like External HDD's, Printers, etc.
-Apparently, still waiting for confirmation on this one, a Portuguese author decided to put ALL his work on the public domain after his death. The above mentioned SPA, and the author's family have been trying to nullify his will.
The SPA, on its site, on their own FAQ's says something like this (my own translation, subject to involuntary errors):
"There is an evident incompatibility between the emission of CC licenses and the collective management of musical and literary-musical works of the management catalog of the SPA. In effect, if the author (national or international) doesn't inform, previously, the collective management entity that he pretends to license a specific usage of the work, the simple CC license will not be enough to avoid the duty/right of collecting the authors rights."
So, I do make a intuitive reading of all this, and I do see a picture forming. The government intents to start collecting a tax over the private copying, and is setting up SPA to collect it, with such powers as to not even works published under CC0, are exempt of the tax.
An example, you have a business, and you play music from Jamendo Radio. All that music is licensed under CC. The SPA, will tax you for distribution, even if you prove you don't ever play any other station or music.
In effect, this law will make the use of CC in Portugal, illegal, useless and unenforceable.
Some, here, are saying that this only a draft, that the party proposing it is not even in power (elections next month) and that all of this is just smoke. Maybe. Maybe not.
There are maybe some tricks to invite comments on FB, you haven't tried... :)
I don't see the FB pages as extensions of blogs like these ones. They can be, and probably should be, separated universes, with a common focus.
The fact remains, that this blog is in my daily MUST reads, as it probably is to many others. The Techdirt FB page, isn't, and I wouldn't mind that extra dimension to exist.
I have noticed several blogs that make use of Facebook to spread their stories, that they use a different headline to post directly on FB, usually with a call to comment, or with challenge of some kind. Can't measure their effectiveness, other than I do follow those links to read the stories. And, what do I do with Techdirt? I come here and refresh the page to read the article I saw the post in FB.
There's maybe something missing or needing to be improved there, don't you think? You still get my traffic, it just doesn't come from where I learned about the article.
Also, looking at the page, the lack of comments discourages comments. Maybe if the link was posted in a different way, inviting to comment, it could change that.
Again, this is my personnel view. And it is meant with the utmost respect to your work here... :)
"or if, perhaps, we didn't do enough to encourage people to follow our Facebook page"
I can only speak for myself, but I've noticed how little use there is on your Facebook Page, other then reposts of the tweets.
Those, you can't even share them. You can just like or type a comment. That really removes a lot of the usability. Also, there's a considerable time lapse between the post here, the tweet and the tweet post on Facebook. So, if, like me, you follow Techdirt on Twitter and on Facebook, by the time you get the Facebook post, you already read the article, either by a refresh here, or from Twitter. Since the FB post can't even be shared, you'd need to make a like or a share from here, or, a RT on Twitter.
There are many articles here I do share on FB &/or Twitter, but, it would be a lot easier if the Facebook posts allowed direct share, and there wasn't the significant time lapse.
Also, I see no interaction on the Facebook page, even when people ask questions or make comments, even inflammatory ones. If you want more traffic from there, maybe that would be a starting point.
We could easily submit stories to you through the FB page, sharing is effective and easy on FB. And, engaging users in conversation there, could bring them here where you can make money from them.
I am fairly convinced that a majority of that content is created without any consideration of copyright.
In fact I believe that copyright is not a concern to any of those content creators, they create "in spite" of copyright, not because of.
There are probably some "decent" uses of copyright. I can't right now remember of none, but, I am sure that they exist. For the majority of the world, right now, copyright is a synonym of repression, censure and almost an obscene word.
Who made them think that way?
Any involved and connected content creator right now, has to consider carefully what kind of license they will offer for their work. Or, face the risk of alienating it's fans.
Copyright is being defined as a money grabber scheme, something to avoid. Only the ones doing the grabbing haven't seen it yet. But they will. :)