James Plotkin 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (116) comment rss

  • On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2012 @ 08:49am

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

    Haha!

    Well thanks for engaging me in this back and forth. I think we've come full circle and without lobing stupid ad hominem insults at one another (essentially why I don't bother with Boing Boing or Torrent Freak anymore).

    Well argued Ninja!

  • On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2012 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    wow...

    I just wrote a long winded response to this reply but the site bugged and I lost it.

    I apologize, but I really don't feel like writing it again...

    In summary:

    I think we agree with each other for the most part.

    You misunderstood my criticism of the political views thing...let's just drop it.

    We disagree on the entitlement thing although I agree with what you say in your reply. You didn't really address what I was getting at which is essentially that the only reason why free is more popular than pay when it comes to Twitter is because Twitter always has been free.

    Paradigms shift. consumer habits change. E-mail once cost money. They don't anymore and I think we agree on the reasons why. There is no reason why we think of services like Twitter as inherently free other than the arbitrary decision to launch it that way.

    One paradigm I don't think has entirely shifted is the principle that you get what you pay for. The web does challenge this in many important areas. However, grosso modo, the free service is generally not going to be as good as the one that costs money (just like the one that costs $100 will generally be better than the one that costs $10). I think that this is relatively uncontroversial.

    Personally, I'm fond of the two tier model like the one used by LinkedIn. A free user gets the essentials, but a pay user gets the bells and whistles.

    Or there's the Grooveshark take on the same model where the free user gets 90% of the functionality but also has ads where the pay user gets a bit more functionality and has no ads.

    In light of the above, perhaps it's really a hybrid model that works best!

  • On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2012 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Working backwards from the bottom:

    - It was more the "Israeli abuses in Palestine" comment that motivated my retort. You don't do yourself any favors in the context of this discussion by surreptitiously sneaking in your political convictions.

    - Why is it unfair to offer free to some and pay to others? You didn't really back this up. I agree that charging those who can't afford it the same fee as those who can is regressive and undesirable. But while "formal equality" is not served by my proposed model, "Real equality" is. If it's no skin off your back to spend $1 (or so) a month to subsidize those who can't afford it, why shouldn't you. If Twitter is a social benefit for everyone, then we can justify a little bit of expense levied on those who can easily afford it. I don't think I'm in a bubble...a lot of things work this way...like oh say...income tax (spare me the republican vs. democrat debate on this...just making a point)

    - " Maybe this is not the case in America or in the developed world where no1 ever uses the neighbor's open wi-fi because they don't have the money."

    I specifically addressed this by saying that only those in developed countries would have to pay.

    - "Let us think Brazil for instance..."

    You're still not really arguing with me. Maybe Brazilians should be among those who don't have to pay...yet.

    - Depending on what you mean by convoluted environment, this had been addressed too. My pay model would not force an Egyptian or Tunisian in the middle of a revolt to pay for the service regardless of their means...

    I hope I've addressed all your counter arguments. Bottom line is that you don't like the pay model. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I love it either. I'm just saying that it can definitely work and that those who can afford it should be willing to pay for something of value. Again...Where does this unjustified sense of entitlement come from?

  • On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2012 @ 11:07am

    Re:

    $1 a month? who can't afford $1 a month?

    These sites obviously do business based on volume. The subscription doesn't have to be that expensive.

    I don't think it's fair to say that a $1/month subscription fee would limit the appeal of Twitter to a niche portion of the population.

    I just don't think people, even cheap and broke people are quite as cheap and broke as you make them out to be.

    There's also the idea of making the services fee based for affluent countries and free in developing countries. That way the poorest of the poor (who live int he poorest places) won't have to pay but those who can afford it (on balance) will. Are you now going to propose that even poorer North Americans can't afford $1 a day? That's a little tough to defend...

    BTW- It only detracts from your substantive point when you get political in one of these posts. Your thoughts on Spain and the Middle East aren't relevant and so while they're just an illustration, they detract from, rather than bolster your point. Just friendly advice.

  • On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Not wrong...but disingenuous

    My point was that I WOULD pay a reasonable fee (let's say $1 a month) for a service like Twitter. It has value, I recognize that value and I'm willing to pay a modest amount to take advantage of it.

    As for your response to my first quote, you haven't actually said anything other than that in your personal opinion, the pay model is wrong. Fact is, you're simply perpetuating the "Internet entitlement" viewpoint which I find is often (though not always) unjustified

    So....What's you're point again?

  • On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2012 @ 09:55am

    Not wrong...but disingenuous

    Now now Mike...

    "First off, App.net's interests are not economically aligned with its users. It wants money from those users, and all things being equal, those users want to keep their money. So their goals are actually diametrically opposed."

    Sure, you CAN interpret his position that way...but you would be giving the least charitable interpretation possible (never a nice thing to do).

    I think what he meant was that the interest of users is to be seen heard, and to see and hear what they want. If profits are driven by subscription, it is in the best interest of the provider to assure that this is the case. If ads are involved, a new viable (or interest) enters the arena, that of the advertiser.

    So yes, in a manner of speaking (and int he manner Caldwell obviously meant it) pay-baed is "purer" than ad-based. You could argue over the definition of the word pure...but that would make you a semantical d-bag...

    You're right on your second point (that ad-based models still require user satisfaction). But again, I agree with Caldwell in that I'm annoyed when I get "sponsored tweets" that don't interest me in the least. It's annoying! Is it enough to make me leave Twitter? No. Would I prefer they not be there? Yes!

    Mike, I can appreciate your position and I don't completely disagree with it. However, as usual, you're way too unequivocal about this (even though you say that no model is "right").

    Again, it's really bad form to give statements made by people the least favorable interpretation. It's uncharitable and plain uncool...also it doesn't advance the discussion much.

  • On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2012 @ 08:59am

    Re: Re: Hold on a minute

    I agree that DRM shouldn't be considered synonymous with "bad". Unless you're a copyright abolitionist and believe that intellectual property rights shouldn't exist (a growing club) then DRM should be viewed as a valuable tool.

    I think what most people rail against- and here I agree with them- is the abuse of those technologies and the lack of safe harbors in the law. Yes the DMCA provides for exceptions and the case law that has developed in the United States over the past decade or so had enriched our understanding. However, here in Canada, our government has just enacted a law that prohibits the circumvention of TPMs, even for lawful purposes. The exceptions tot he rule are incredibly narrow (dealing with things like encryption research and reverse engineering for product compatibility).

    Events like the Sony Rootkit fiasco don't help either. Fact is that DRM has acquired a bad name, not because it's inherently bad, but because it's abused by the content industry and over-protected by legislation.

    Bottom line, DRM has to get a little friendlier.

    Masnick has to tone down the opinion and strive for a little more objectivity. You're borderline distorting facts...as was the case in your assessment of the 7th circuit decision in MyVidster...A LITTLE OBJECCTIVITY...PLEASE

  • On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2012 @ 08:35am

    Hold on a minute

    I agree that the RIAA and MPAA will likely never be satisfied with the anti-piracy measures taken by anyone...That said, Mr. Masnick, I don't think you're very fair in your characterization of the RIAA and MPAA as being the forces of evil engaged in a struggle against the forces of good:

    "...their neverending war against providing people what they want."

    Come on now Mike...

    I agree that the MPAA and RIAA are seriously misguided, even stupid at times in the way they try to stem piracy.For example, suing thousands of your customers is a pretty terrible excuse for a revenue stream. But just because they're fools with tunnel vision, doesn't mean you can accuse them of being pure evil...

    They aren't in a war with providing people what they want. They just want to get paid and for their members to be paid. Again, when you say that their methods of achieving this are ridiculous and ineffective, I agree with you 100%.

    There's just too much hyperbole and not enough honest discussion about how to solve the broken music industry model. A paradigm shift is required if the industry is ever to know it's former glories. I'm of the opinion that the major label model is toast. Some good ideas have been put forward such as a broadband fee.

    Why don't we talk about solutions?

  • On the post: Judge Posner: Embedding Infringing Videos Is Not Copyright Infringement, And Neither Is Watching Them

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2012 @ 08:21am

    overly simple interpretation

    I admit I haven't had a chance to read the case a second time (just skimmed it once), but it seems Mike has oversimplified he ruling. Posner's decision was much more narrow than this post suggests. For a more complete analysis see Barry Sookman: http://www.barrysookman.com/2012/08/08/understanding-flava-works-v-myvidster-does-inline-linking-infringe-copyright/

    I may weigh in on my own blog upon giving the case a more thorough read.

  • On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2012 @ 08:31am

    pivot case

    I agree with the author in that statutory damages in this case would turn out to be insanity.I also agree that the current framework of the American copyright law is not cognizant of the type of copying the Internet makes possible.

    Setting aside the fair use argument for a moment, the Google Books project has to be the single largest instance of copyright infringement in history. Simply put, it's a game changer.

    It's pivot cases like these that have the capacity to change the law so as to bring it into line with current social propositions and norms. I don't think that anyone would argue (other than the plaintiffs) that what Google has done by digitizing and rendering searchable this catalog is "morally wrong". It is legally wrong (again, setting aside the possibility of fair use), but it isn't morally wrong. In fact, I think that the cataloging and making available of so much culture can only be seen as a good thing-again, independent of the contravention of the law.

    If we, as a society don't see anything inherently wrong with what Google has done, then we should lobby for a change in the underlying law.

    Let's remember that they aren't offering the entire book for works that are still in print and haven't entered the public domain. In many cases they link to places where the book may be purchased.

    I don't think it'll happen, but this case should fundamentally change the way Americans view "massive copyright infringement". Is it really that bad...for anyone?

  • On the post: Over 400,000 Homes Have Cut The Cord So Far This Year… But Cord Cutting Is Still A Myth?

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2012 @ 09:32am

    propoganda

    Leave it to content industry executives to underplay a paradigm shift int he way their customers consume content...

    This is nostalgic. I can't put my finger on it. Something about a ca wearing headphones, free music files...Nap-something?

    But seriously, it's time to get online and on-demand moving full steam ahead. I haven't had a cable connection in over 3 years...I know I'm not a mutant...

  • On the post: Obama And Romney Each Have An Ad Disappear As The Olympics Gets Snippy About Anyone Referencing The Olympics

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2012 @ 09:22am

    Enough is enough!

    This Olympic IPR issue has gotten way out of hand! The games haven't even started and I'm sick of hearing the word Olympic...wait, did I just infringe someone's copyright or trade mark.

    I'm getting really fed up with this because while I'm a believer in IPR, this type of treatment is insane! It makes those of us who support IP look bad and gives ammunition to the copyright abolitionists...

    Just a sorry state of affairs...

  • On the post: RIAA Knows (But Tried To Hide) That Most 'Unpaid' Music Acquisition Comes From Offline Swapping

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2012 @ 08:49am

    surprising numbers

    Assuming for a moment that these figures paint an accurate picture of the music sharing landscape, they are a little surprising.

    Maybe it's all the rhetoric from the content industry that everyone is going broke, but I would have though that P2P and cyber lockers would make up a larger part of the illicit music sharing world.

    Personally, I see IP rights as an important part of a country's economy. I believe in the IP right. That said, I don't believe in fear mongering. I don't believe in guilt campaigns against the general public with the goal of shaming them out of a given behavior.

    The current system is broken because it was never made to account for the current social paradigm and the vehicle that makes it possible, the Internet.

    IP rights in general and copyright in specific must be reworked to coexist with the digital landscape and the values of the people that occupy it...

  • On the post: Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2012 @ 08:49am

    link

    Sorry, forgot to include a link to support my claim:

    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6456/125/

  • On the post: Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2012 @ 08:47am

    Old news...

    The US Federal Government has had a list of "naughty" countries for a long time (with reference to IP)

    Canada has been on the list forever. Some speculate that the list was one of the prime movers of copyright reform in this country.

    While this might be an oversimplification, there's no doubt that it played a role in the policy direction of the Conservative Party of Canada in it's drafting of bill C-11 which will be passed any week now.

    Hum haw...

  • On the post: WIPO Is Quietly Signing An Agreement To Give Hollywood Stars Their Own Special Version Of Copyright

    James Plotkin ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2012 @ 10:51am

    Deja vu?

    Hmmm...
    Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there was an issue recently about surreptitious IP treaty negotiations. Didn't those end in protests? the acronym escapes me. was it ACRA? no, that can't be right...