"I think this is an attack on our eco-system," said NBC Broadcasting chairman..."
Reality is an attack on Television's eco system. As well as every other business that depends on copyright to make money. They better start thinking outside the box. (see what I did there?)
You've been listening... but I guess you really haven't heard anything. The decline in sales over the last 10 years you speak of make my point for me.
Also, I never brought up copyright. I don't want to take away your control of your own music, I want you to at least consider that looking at things differently, you may have more success.
You have my permission to continue to distribute your music as a product and charge per copy.
Law makers aren't passing laws that the big corporations want them to simply because "they want them to", they do it because they are GIVING THEM MONEY.
What the constituents want only matters during an election year.
I might suggest looking into the artist and his label before tossing out such an ignorant comment. Charlie and DFTBA records are surprisingly profitable.
Say goodbye to those cheap sunglasses stands at the mall, to a $10 pair of shoes, etc. The average person won't notice this until it's too late. Affordable clothing will all look the same. The middle-class (what's left of it) will be dressed just like they do in a futuristic sci-fi movie... all alike.
Actually, I find this analogy to be exactly right. He's not saying that people are getting prints of original paintings for free. He's saying that the get to "experience" the paintings in an art gallery for free (like listening to a song on the radio).
Now, some believe (as I do) that most people who download MP3's for free are (in their own head) listening to the radio. These are people who would normally never buy but download just because they want to hear it and see what's what. As a musician, you can disagree with this attitude and scream "theif!" if you like, but you do so at your own peril.
"End consumers should not be deciding what is free and what isn't, and they shouldn't be deciding which business model is right or wrong (and then supporting none of them)."
Umm... That's exactly what end consumers should be doing. And do. That's basic economics.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by jeffmacdougall.
"I think this is an attack on our eco-system," said NBC Broadcasting chairman..."
Reality is an attack on Television's eco system. As well as every other business that depends on copyright to make money. They better start thinking outside the box. (see what I did there?)
Re: Re:
Try googling Jim Jones and Kool Aid. And it matters.
Re: An amusing cartoon...
"They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material. Sorry to disappoint you again!"
- And how would you pay for this counter law suit with all your revenue streams cut off?
"They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material. Sorry to disappoint you again!"
- Suuuuurre they will. It says so right there in the legislatio... oh wait, no it doesn't.
Get real. The major industry players are already abusing the laws they have.
Re: Re: still need
Is it? No empirical proof that this is true has ever been presented.
This bill will do a lot of unfortunate things but one thing it won't do is keep Hollywood "fat" or "happy".
Re: Do What you Want
You've been listening... but I guess you really haven't heard anything. The decline in sales over the last 10 years you speak of make my point for me.
Also, I never brought up copyright. I don't want to take away your control of your own music, I want you to at least consider that looking at things differently, you may have more success.
You have my permission to continue to distribute your music as a product and charge per copy.
How's that workin' out for you, anyway?
Re:
"Not good enough?" - Is that a joke?
Law makers aren't passing laws that the big corporations want them to simply because "they want them to", they do it because they are GIVING THEM MONEY.
What the constituents want only matters during an election year.
Re:
I might suggest looking into the artist and his label before tossing out such an ignorant comment. Charlie and DFTBA records are surprisingly profitable.
Say goodbye to those cheap sunglasses stands at the mall, to a $10 pair of shoes, etc. The average person won't notice this until it's too late. Affordable clothing will all look the same. The middle-class (what's left of it) will be dressed just like they do in a futuristic sci-fi movie... all alike.
Re:
So if society were to change copyright laws so that it wasn't illegal for individuals to copy and share music, you'd be okay with that?
Re: Re: change the perspective.
Actually, I find this analogy to be exactly right. He's not saying that people are getting prints of original paintings for free. He's saying that the get to "experience" the paintings in an art gallery for free (like listening to a song on the radio).
Now, some believe (as I do) that most people who download MP3's for free are (in their own head) listening to the radio. These are people who would normally never buy but download just because they want to hear it and see what's what. As a musician, you can disagree with this attitude and scream "theif!" if you like, but you do so at your own peril.
Re: Re: Journalist
"End consumers should not be deciding what is free and what isn't, and they shouldn't be deciding which business model is right or wrong (and then supporting none of them)."
Umm... That's exactly what end consumers should be doing. And do. That's basic economics.