SomeGuy 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (242) comment rss

  • On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If the people downloading it are in large part the same people paying for it

    And there's the assumption you're making that they won't. they'll see 100k movie-goers and 100k downloads and complain that they lost 1/2 their profits.

  • On the post: If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 07:59am

    Re:

    So far, no one has given me any reason strong enough, or "right" enough to justify me willingly backing an idea that would take money out of my pocket.

    As a point of fact, if it isn't in your pocket to begin with, then no one's taking it out of your pocket. What's the difference between Microsoft not using your music now (and thus not paying you) and Microsoft using your music for free (with authorization)? In neither case does anyone give you money, but in the second case you DO get exposure. So in which scenario are you, the songwriter, better off?

  • On the post: If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 07:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank you

    Unfortunately, he didn't return any, and it's giving us all a headache.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 08:34am

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

    "I wonder why it seems to almost SOLELY be handled in civil court, then?"

    Because criminal court has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil cases don't have such high standards, you just have to prove that someone is possibly guilty.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 01:18pm

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

    "The torrents do not provide any compensation to the content producers, and that is my problem."

    What about, as is the case with many, the producers aren't LOOKING for compensation from the torrents? Look no further than Trent Reznor for an example; he's been seeding NIN torrents for a while now. Other artists, from film producers to photographers to authors -- use torrents to get their works out there. No, giving away EVERYTHING can't be the whole of your business model, but torrents are only wrong if they're unauthorized, infringing torrents.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 01:10pm

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

    "The producers of that product ARE being denied their rightful property - income from their sweat and labor to make the product."

    By that logic, I'm stealing from the industry by simply not-buying DVDs. You are not OWED compensation just because to produced something.

    "And, copyright infringment IS theft in the eyes of the law."

    No, it's not. Theft falls under criminal laws and statutes. Copyright infringement is only a civil dispute.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 12:10pm

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

    "There is no difference between stealing whether the goods stolen are real, or digital."

    And I hold that's the fundamental error you're making. there is a difference because theft only occurs when someone is denied their rightful property. In the case of unauthorized downloading, EVERYONE has the digital goods, no one is being denied it. What's being denied is an exclusive right to copy, but that's copyright infringement, NOT theft.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Steals it? Now, I dopn't agree with unauthorized downloading, but how exactly do you think these torrents get out there in the first place?

    If some guy goes out and buys a DVD, he paid for it, right? Now, if he cracks the encryption and puts the digital files on his computer, he's infringed on copyright (he doesn't have the right to copy it), but he hasn't STOLEN anything. And if he gives copies of that cracked DVD away, the people he gives it to aren't STEALING, not from him and not from the copyright holders. Copyright is being infringed on by this guy making unauthorized copies of the DVD he bought, but no THEFT has occured.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're cherry-picking. there's been no proof that filesharing hurts the industry. There IS proof that *actual material theft* hurts businesses. There's a HUGE difference here between abundant digital goods and real property, like a car or bananas. your refusal to admit that difference doesn't change the facts.

  • On the post: Lily Allen: Copying Isn't Alright… Unless It's Done By Lily Allen

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2009 @ 11:59am

    By the way, does this mean we can post her music to our site without crediting her now, too?

    That was a little uncalled-for, Mike. Everything to that point was pretty nicely phrased, but this line just makes it feel petty. Next to the rest of your comment, it makes you sound insincere about not-caring if she copies you.

  • On the post: Bad Ideas: Trying To Make Content More Like Physical Property

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2009 @ 09:02am

    Re: Re:

    why clean toilets for minimum wage when you can get all the food you need.

    Because food, though necessary, is only one of many things people want. There're still houses, cars, the Internet, TV, videos, heat and electricity, games, amusment parks, trips to europe, new clothes, stage plays... There are plenty of things people want enough to work for even (especially?) if they don't have to pay a bill for food every month.

  • On the post: Morrissey: Don't Buy My Music

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2009 @ 05:57am

    Re:

    Fan X has $50 to spend, and wants to support Morrissey.
    Fax X knows the box set is coming out for the example-frendly price of $50.
    Fan X also knows that Morrissey will be playing the next town over, and costs to see the concert are conveniently also $50.

    All else being equal, the box set would provide repeatable enjoyment and seeing the show would have the added cost of time spent driving/watching the show/etc. The Box Set looks like a marginal winner. Fan X buys the box set and doesn't see the show. Unbeknownst to Fan X, he loses his $50 without getting a dime to Morissey.

    Contrast this with free music which could potentially have the same or more promotional value as the box set, but will not deprive Fan X of his $50. Fan X can not get the music AND see the show, and Morrissey gets paid.

    See? Box Set != Free Music.

  • On the post: Patry: It's Not Copyright That Creates Value, It's Consumers' Willingness To Buy

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2009 @ 06:09am

    Re:

    Napster started in 1999, was caught in legal troubles in 2000, and shut its doors in mid-2001.

    iTunes was introduced as Mac-only in 2001 and wasn't available for PCs until late 2003. That's 4 years after Napster hit, and 2 years after Napster closed it's doors. What's more, iTunes for Windows only supports syncing with the iPod which limits it's usability for people who don't want to pay premium for Apple-brand products.

    Additionally, music bought from the iTunes store before 2009 was DRM-protected and couldn't be played on non-iPod devices.

    So... yeah. iTunes was late, limited, and weak. The Industry worked with Apple, for reasons I still don't understand, and THAT'S why it dominates the way it does these days -- the industry killed all it's competition for them.

  • On the post: Should Wedding Party In Viral YouTube Video Get A Cut Of Music Sale Profits?

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2009 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re: *Sigh*

    but by not over-reacting and demanding the video be taken down

    You're giving Sony too much credit. The Internets just move too fast, and people started handing them money before they could get their legal guns loaded. If not for that this vid would have been silenced like all the others.

  • On the post: What Would Happen If Social Networking Sites Charged

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2009 @ 08:42am

    Re: Re:

    Even granting that general utility can be measured accordingly, internet users may choose a network on the sole basis of its being a better alternative than any others, or because their specific subset of friends are on there(which changes the utility of a service specific to them), or because it is the hot thing to do.

    (1) What makes a social network a better alternative? A cleaner interfece, more apps, more people to interact with? If it's not "better" by something intrinsic to itself, what draws these better things?

    (2) When talking about "a specific subset of friends," you're now talking about a cross between that subset and "people willing to pay" for the site. But you're defining "people willing to pay" as people who have friends there. As soon as you start discouraging people from using your site (by charging), you'll find fewer and fewer people fall into this category; the more people leave, the fewer friends who are there, and so even more people leave.

    (3) Why is something "the hot thing"? Because it's popular. because people are doing it. But when you're discouraging people from using your site, it's unlikely to really become popular.

    Yes, these things may keep some peple there for some time, and it may convince them to pay for your service for a little bit, but I can't imagine that it's very sustainable.

  • On the post: What Would Happen If Social Networking Sites Charged

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2009 @ 08:28am

    Re: Charging for Social Networks

    Unless, of course, they want to lose all their customers.

    You're doing it wrong. Facebook's customers aren't they're users. Their customers are advertisers. The users are their product. Facebook harvests time and screen-space from it's users and sells that to advertisers. If it started charging people for the "privledge," it would run out of things to sell.

  • On the post: Jack White The Latest Musician To Experiment With Smart New Business Models

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2009 @ 06:57am

    Re:

    if you want to make broad claims that there has been a sea-change in the music business and that new business models are "not the exception at all. [They are] the rule."

    I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. mike isn't say there's been a sea-change and that everyone "in the business" is using these new modles. rather, he's saying that these models work, and here's a dozen example to show it (including large, small, and middling artists). When he says this (the modles work), detractors come around and say, "it works for Artist X because he's big" or "it works for Artist Y because he's small" or "it works for artist Z because she's middling," anlways followed by "but it won't work for the majority of artists." And it's that "but" that Mike's disputing.

    You're right, it's not "the rule" as in "this is the way business gets done," but it is the rule as in "this is sound economics that can work for anyone."

  • On the post: Jack White The Latest Musician To Experiment With Smart New Business Models

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2009 @ 06:48am

    Re: This isn't going to work

    what kind of chat room does anyone care to use when you have to pay to join?

    One where you might get to talk to the artists?

    they don't want to deal with ... the internet when they could be doing drugs.

    Oh, you think the artists are chumps, anyways.

    Then the platinum sells gives you "exclusive" 12 & 7 inch records, which will be online within a matter of days of their release to club members.

    The music might be on the Internet, but the records won't be. These days, physical records are obviously meants as novelty collector's items.

  • On the post: Jack White The Latest Musician To Experiment With Smart New Business Models

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2009 @ 06:43am

    Re:

    I think Mike was talking about "having a similar sound," not "sounding the same." Pop music aside, lots of bands can fall into the same genre of music without being audiably identical. The "problem" with large, diverse lables is that there's nothing that says if I like two or three bands signed with them that I'd like any of the others they have signed. That may not be a problem, really, if I'm willing to subscribe based on those two or three artists alone (maybe I'll try out the other stuff and accidentally find something I like), but if there's reason to believe I WILL like the majority of the artists signed by a lable (because they all share a similar sound) I'm probably MORE likely to subscribe.

  • On the post: Why Does Wal-Mart Need A 3,379-Word Terms Of Use For Its Twitter Account?

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2009 @ 11:43am

    Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource

    Not Mike, but... One thing that comes to mind is that if i'm not spending money on buying music, I DO have more money to spend on other things, like concerts and the like. So the market kind of expands in that way. Also, the efficiencies that allow for free music also lower the financial threshold for "breaking in" to music, so more artists can afford to join the market now than before. That kind of expands the market, too. Plus, people are able to get more exposure to more music, so instead of having a few superstars like U2 and the Beatles you have a lot more musicians of a lot more diversity able to make a living being musicians than before. So that kind of expands the market, too.

    I think you're right, there's not more time or money, necessarily, being put into the system, but that's not really the only way to "expand" the market.

    Should've asked on a post discussing music or the economics of free, though, rather than one focused onstrange EULAs.

Next >>