Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260)

• On the post: The Warehousing And Delivery Of Digital Goods? Nearly Free, Pretty Easy, Mostly Trivial

  

  Karl ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2012 @ 12:27am

  Interesting...

  Here's the thing. I agree that digital warehousing, storage, and whatnot are very very cheap compared with housing physical goods.
  
  But he is right to say that data storage and bandwidth is not free. For a popular site, the costs can be relatively enormous.
  
  Here's the thing. The ones who bear the cost of the storage and bandwidth are usually not the ones who actually produce the material to be stored or transmitted. They are the ones who have found business models that are content-agnostic, scalable, and sustainable.
  
  Yet, the "warehousing and delivery" aspect is almost always brought up by the idiots claiming "free content isn't free." See e.g. Lowery's letter to Emily White: "It turns out the supposedly 'free' stuff really isn?t free" (linking to this story at Scholarly Kitchen). This directly contradicts the notion (again from Lowery) that sites like iTunes "simply hosting the songs on their servers. They do absolutely nothing else."
  
  Well, yeah, they do something else. They warehouse, archive, and deliver digital goods. Something that Lowery insists costs money and isn't free. Yet, they are absolutely livid when the people who actually bear those costs take a cut of the content sales. It is really disgusting, frankly.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2012 @ 06:25pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  More on public libraries,
  
  they buy all of their books, apparently around 14 billion dollars worth every year. They often have to re-buy books as they become worn. So publishers profit directly from libraries.
  
  The people who share files have to do this too. So publishers are also profiting directly from infringers.
  
  each library has to buy their books, lending books to only that town.
  
  Not exactly true. Libraries are generally grouped into regions; and each library's region can ship books between other libraries in that region. The Boston Public Library, for instance, is available to any citizen of Massachusetts, and has 26 branches, each of which can share books with each other.
  
  Even in other regions, this is not an intentional policy to protect publishers, but driven by practical necessity. It would be better if this weren't true, but they just don't have the resources.
  
  With piracy, one never ending copy can be given to the entire world forever.
  
  In the real world, that's an exaggeration. It's doubtful that all of the downloads for one work are from the same source. If you look at the number of library readers per book, and compare it to the number of downloads per single source, they're likely about the same.
  
  Are they spending 14 billion?
  
  In 2011, iTunes reached a landmark of 15 billion songs sold. (And that's just one retailer.) Of those sales, the vast majority were purchased by people who also pirate.
  
  So, the answer is "yes."

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2012 @ 05:58pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  I don't think that's true about the number of artworks having no relation to the value.
  
  Whatever your artistic theories, it has absolutely nothing to do with counterfeiting money. The moment we start using paintings as currency is the moment you have a point. Until then, you're making a false analogy.
  
  Mine was a simple question, trying to bring this down to earth. I'm not trying to legally define copyright, morals, ethics, or anything.
  
  I don't know how you "bring it down to earth" without involving ethics or laws, but OK.
  
  I'll bring it down to earth for you. Public access to works of art is a good thing. It has always been considered a good thing, whether you're talking libraries or the Gutenberg Bible. Leaving aside artworks, creating abundance from scarcity has always been considered a good thing.
  
  You're trying to curtail these good things solely to make money. That is not a good thing. It might be a necessary thing, but it is not a good thing.
  
  Before the incredibly easy and free distribution of other people's works, were people explaining how those people's works should be distributed to anyone and everyone for free?
  
  Before the Internet, the closest thing that existed would be a public library. Which is why I brought it up. If you want to see explanations on why works "should be distributed to anyone and everyone for free," look at why libraries exist.
  
  Seems that because it would actually cost the copiers and distributors *money* to do so was probably ironically more of a factor then the importance of sharing information.
  
  It's not ironic at all, actually. It's the primary reason that infringement was considered a bad thing.
  
  All the analogies so far that you brought up have not actually happened in real life, and why they didn't is why they are bad analogies. Prior to digital file sharing, it cost money to reproduce an artwork. Money to print and bind books; money to manufacture CD's or LP's; money to print up T-Shirts.
  
  This means that the only people who could afford to do it were for-profit commercial entities. And as I said before, when the infringement is done for profit, then you do have a right to be upset, because someone else is making money from selling your product. (But, again, this should obviously be directed at people actually selling bootleg posters, and not third parties like the printing company.)
  
  But that's not true anymore. People who share works nowadays almost always are not doing it to make money. They're usually doing it because they like the work, and want other people to enjoy it too. This changes the ballgame completely.
  
  Think of the Internet as a giant library. Any member of the public can walk into the library, and check out (download or stream) any work they want for free. Now, one of these people "checks out" your work. Do you get upset at that person? Or do you think it's great that out of the billions of works in existence, they checked out yours?
  
  Of course, you have a right to be upset at that person. You'd be a dick, but you have a right to be a dick.
  
  Is there an online library where I can read any book that's ever been written for free?
  
  Whether online or offline, the answer is no. But that's not the libraries' fault. In the pre-Internet age, this was limited by storage space and funding. Even there, they tried to get around it, by e.g. having the ability to ship books from library to library. In general, the more works a library had, the better the library.
  
  Online, this is limited by the publishers, not the libraries. But there are several that try to put out every work that they legally can. Two good ones are Project Gutenberg (for books) and Archive.org (for things like movies). Also, the Library of Congress has a ton of public domain images. Are you saying that these sites are doing something wrong?
  
  Lastly, many many many many artists own their own copyrights, not big corporations.
  
  True, but these are the artists that are more likely to benefit from the exposure that free distribution brings. Generally speaking, if an artist owns his own copyright, he's not signed to a publisher (most publishers require artists to assign their copyrights prior to publication). Without a publisher, your biggest issue is obscurity; and as Tim O'Reilly put it, "Obscurity is a bigger problem for authors than piracy."

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2012 @ 05:21pm

  Re: Re:

  if you don't you have to pay money (a fine).
  
  One other point I forgot to make...
  
  You know why that fine is there? It's not so that authors or publishers will make more money (it doesn't go to them). It's there to make people return books on time, so that more people will have free access to it.
  
  The fines are there to increase free public access. According to your proposed moral code, this would make the fines themselves immoral.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2012 @ 05:16pm

  Re:

  Okay, seems to be working now...
  
  Well, to be honest, I find most of what you say confusing.
  
  Just a guess, but I'm betting it's because you view morality in terms of what benefits you (or, at least, what benefits artists in general). That's not what morality is about. It doesn't matter whether free access to works harms you or not. (But for the record, I believe it does not.) It only matters whether it benefits people in general.
  
  It's also not why copyright exists. This is specified in the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not grant copyrights to authors; it grants the power to Congress - elected servants of the public - to create copyright laws. Or not, solely as benefits the public. "Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people..." (H.R. Rep. No. 60-2222)
  
  For example. with a library, you have to give the book back within a short amount of time, and if you don't you have to pay money (a fine).
  
  Also, if the book is checked out, no one else can have it.
  
  This is assuming that there is only one copy of the book, which is not necessarily true. (If a book is in greater demand, libraries will often get more than one copy.) It's also not "a short amount of time" - it is deliberately enough time to read the entire book, start to finish.
  
  And it's also completely irrelevant to the point at hand. According to your ethics, everyone who checks out a book is immoral, since people "who actually like it and would have bought it now get it for free, [so] I'm out of some dollars that I had a right to."
  
  In fact, the very thing you're claiming is immoral - the ability for anyone, anywhere, to enjoy the entire work, for free - is what makes libraries moral. Equal access to art is such a bedrock of morality, it is almost considered a human right.
  
  Why doesn't person A say to person B, "hey, you should buy a copy from the guy who made it to support his efforts. He's talented and works hard and if I give you a copy that won't help him buy cheese to eat as there is no cheese replicator yet".
  
  You act like there is a conflict between the two. There isn't. Person A can say that, and mean it, and still make a copy for Person B. It's not hypocritical, it's not immoral, and it's actually why most people share files in the first place. (That's why people who share music buy much more music than people who do not.)
  
  As far as the cheese replicator goes, well if and when you can replicate cheese and *everything* else, it seems that to be able to only replicate things like music and art makes life a very uneven playing field
  
  The machines we are talking about - computers - have the ability to copy any kind of data whatsoever. Words, images, video, music, games, business applications, spreadsheets, CAD files, clothing designs, business presentations, classroom assignments, SETI data, cheese recipes - anything.
  
  The problem is not that musicians and artists (or, realistically, the megacorporations that own their copyrights) are on an uneven playing field. The problem is that they are on a level playing field, and want to tip it out of balance in their favor.
  
  Is it okay to copy and distribute money?
  
  That is not a very good question. Of course it's not OK - for one thing, money's economic value is directly related to the number of copies in existence. That's not true of published artworks. For another thing, money isn't printed for the sole purpose of spreading access to it. That is why copyright exists: so that the public has greater access to artworks.
  
  You're comparing apples with zebras. It's a stupid comparison, and it can only be taken seriously by someone who believes that printing a poster is literally printing money. As in, "if I print 10,000 copies of this poster, I'll automatically make $10,000." That is ridiculous, and I don't think for a minute that you actually believe it's a valid point.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2012 @ 05:09pm

  Re:

  Techdirt is giving me server errors... will answer in depth later.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2012 @ 04:59am

  Re:

  It makes more sense to reply to your post in "reverse order," as it were. So:
  
  You don't see *any* problems with any of this for me, the poster maker?
  
  We are discussing ethics, I thought. What will benefit you, the poster maker, is not necessarily the same thing as what is ethical. This is something that is pretty important to understand.
  
  I'm pretty sure the supermarket would be very much against this as would the people who make the cheese.
  
  Again, what will benefit the supermarket (in this case) is not necessarily what is ethical.
  
  Let's take this cheese analogy to its logical conclusion. What we have now is one of those Star Trek replicators. You press a button, and food comes out, including whatever kind of cheese you want.
  
  Obviously, a device like this is tremendously ethical. If nearly everyone has one, there are no more food shortages. No more world conflicts due to starvation. No more health issues due to malnutrition (the greatest single threat to the world's public health, according to the World Health Organization).
  
  What you are suggesting is to prevent people from using these replicators, merely so that supermarkets and cheesemongers can get money. You are advocating for artificial scarcity for the sake of profit.
  
  That certainly isn't the ethical thing to do.
  
  By the way, I'm not the first to make this comparison.
  
  Why would they buy that brand of cheese ever if someone else gave them as much as they want forever for free?
  
  Plenty of reasons. The cheese maker is the "first to market" with their particular brand of cheese; this shouldn't be underestimated. Maybe the cheese maker can make it more convenient to get cheese from them, rather than someone else (say, a "cheese of the month" club or something). Maybe the cheese maker can build up trust, so that people would rather get their cheese rather than the free cheese. Maybe people simply like the cheese enough to support the cheese maker directly.
  
  This is already happening, in fact. You can't get cheese for free, but you can buy "store brand" cheese that tastes exactly the same for significantly less than name brands. People still buy the name brands. Why do you think that is?
  
  When in the history of people has this been a cool thing to do?
  
  Pretty much since the invention of public libraries.
  
  I make a poster, and hope to sell it, and another person copies it exactly *without asking me*, and starts giving it away to all the people I'm trying to sell it to. I just don't see how that is a cool thing to do.
  
  Let's consider a typical scenario:
  

  Person A: Welcome to my apartment, Person B.
  
  Person B: Hey, that's a cool poster you've got hanging on your wall!
  
  Person A: You like it? Here, let me make a copy for you. (20 seconds later) There you go.
  
  Person B: Thanks!

  
  Do you actually think either person acted unethically? I simply don't see it.
  
  You, on the other hand, are expecting people to curtail behavior which is not unethical, solely so that you can earn a living by selling posters. And this is where "rights" come in: you simply don't have a right to earn a living by selling posters. Nobody does.
  
  Now, everybody (including Persons A and B) wants you to be able to earn a living, whether you have a "right" to do it or not. Everyone wants you to get paid, so that you can continue to create the paintings that people like. So, preventing poster sharing may be a practical necessity (though I would argue that it is not). But it is not ethical. It is, at best, a necessary evil.
  
  The ethical thing to do would be to find some way to get paid, that doesn't prevent Persons A and B from sharing what they like. And there are plenty of ways to do that, many of which are right here on this site.
  
  Probably the best take on it comes from Tegan and Sara.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 04 Jul, 2012 @ 03:38pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I realize that I didn't actually propose any solutions in the last post. Here are some:
  
  1. Name & shame. Similar to what happened with Cooks Source Magazine, or the thing with The Oatmeal.
  
  2. Accept anyone who gives away copies of your poster, but come down hard on anyone who sells copies of it without your permission.
  
  There is a big difference between commercial and non-commercial infringement. In the second case, you are owed every dime that the infringer made. Of course, this only applies to people who are actually selling copies of your poster. Not, say, the printer who printed them up, or the person who hosted the swap meet.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 04 Jul, 2012 @ 03:31pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  So...I'm at the swap meet trying to sell my poster (that many people are buying, it's only a dollar after all, and it took a lot of work to make, so I am very grateful that they like it and are willing to pay for it), and someone else makes copies of my poster and starts giving it away at the swap meet, and I shouldn't be greatly bothered by this?
  
  You have every right to be bothered by this. Just as you have every right to someone itting outside your booth saying "This artists sucks."
  
  The question is, what right do you have to do anything aobut it?
  
  In the second case, the answer is: none. Their opinion is protected expression. Protecting their right to say "you suck" is fundamental to democracy.
  
  Similar things have to be considered in the case of someone giving away copies of your poster. Now, these are the actions that the traditional media companies are doing:
  
  1. Sue anyone who took a free poster, for more than what they make in their entire lives.
  
  2. Have jackbooted thugs storm the booths of suspected infringers.
  
  3. Lobby the government to shut down swap meets altogether.
  
  None of these things seem like good ideas.
  
  Also: I didn't require that it should be "at the swap meet." We live in an age where every single person can, without leaving the comfort of their own home, make a copy of an artwork, and distribute it as far and wide as they can, without having to go to a swap meet at all.
  
  If anything, doesn't this sound the death of swap meets?
  
  And if some people get the poster for free who actually like it and would have bought it now get it for free, then I'm out of some dollars that I had a right to, aren't I?
  
  That's assuming that they would have bought the posters in the first place. Many wouldn't have. With those people, you are not out of any dollars at all. The only "harm" to you is that more people enjoy your work.
  
  On the other hand, it's likely that at least some people only encountered your work because they got it for free. If those people like your work, then they are more likely to buy other posters from you, or pay for the original painting, or even commission an original painting from you. Every dollar you make from those people is a net gain.
  
  And if some people wouldn't have bought the poster anyway, why are they taking it?
  
  You've never taken a free sample at the supermarket, then decided not to buy the product? I find this extremely hard to believe.
  
  It works the same way with content. And if it didn't - are you actually saying it's a moral act to make people pay before they decide whether they like something? That someone who samples the latest Top 40 record now has an obligation to pay full price for that record? If that's what you're saying, I'm pretty sure morality is not on your side.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2012 @ 07:57pm

  Re:

  I have a question about the "no one has a right to make money from what they create" thing.
  
  I think what people mean is that making money isn't a "right." You can convince potential customers to give you money, but it's not a "right."
  
  Just like you don't have a "right" to work at McDonald's - you can apply for a job, but nobody at McDonald's has an obligation to hire you.
  
  You do, of course, have a right to charge whatever you want for your painting. But if people aren't going to buy it - whether for $1 or $1000 - then they aren't violating your rights.
  
  Now, here's the question. Say those people want a poster or painting to put on their wall for years to come. Do you then have a right to a dollar from those people?
  
  Not necessarily. Say, for example, that someone buys your painting for $1, then turns around and sells it to someone else for $1000. Do you have a right to a portion of that $1000? No, you do not. Once you sold that painting, it is no longer your property.
  
  Now, what if he buys your painting for $1, prints up posters of it, and gives those posters away to friends for free? Does the owner now have to pay you to do this, even though the owner isn't making a profit? Do you have the right to prevent the owner from doing this?
  
  Under copyright law, the answer to the last two questions is "yes." Even though he's not selling the posters; even though it doesn't keep you from selling posters of that painting yourself (or prevent you from selling other paintings); even though the owner's friends were not likely to pay you for the posters if they weren't free; even if one of the owner's friends is more likely to commission you to do a new painting because she liked the poster she got for free.
  
  This is what people have a problem with.

• On the post: Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom

  

  Karl ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2012 @ 01:43pm

  Re: Re: Re: Tacking sites on TechDirt

  When you visit this site, the following sites are informed:
  
  FYI, all of these things are necessary for the Wibiya Toolbar to work properly.

• On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk

  

  Karl ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2012 @ 01:51am

  Re: Re: Re:

  tech dirt, you should really check your math...
  
  Yeah, except that story is over a year old, is only estimates based on (extremely biased) sources, and in general is the type of math that Techdirt's article is debunking.
  
  Also, you'll notice that none of these stories compare streaming rates to radio royalties. That's for two reasons: 1. None of the sources even count songwriter royalties, which are the only royalties terrestrial radio pays (meaning that recording artists would get $0 under their calculations); and 2) terrestrial radio rates are far lower than royalties from Spotify.
  
  So, the digital royalties may not be anything special (and certainly one shouldn't count on making a living through Spotify alone). But they're still far greater than any royalties that existed in the analog past.

• On the post: Nearly 50,000 People Ask Why The Government Is Seizing Their Digital Files

  

  Karl ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2012 @ 02:16am

  Re:

  the government didn't stop you from selling/posting your infinitly copyable digital product
  
  Actually, that's exactly what they did. They seized the only remaining copies of Goodwin's (not Mike's) personal data. That data was literally taken: the government taking possession of it means that Goodwin doesn't have it anymore. If the government merely made copies of the data (e.g. for evidence), then we would be having a different discussion.
  
  The rest is just straw man arguments and slander. Mike never once said infinitely copyable digital products aren't "real," nor has he ever said nobody has (or should have) rights to it.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2012 @ 10:53am

  Re: accuracy of numbers

  ANYBODY OUT THERE KNOW WHO JEFF PRICE IS AND THAT HE HAS NEVER ACTUALLY WORKED AT A MAJOR LABEL?
  
  Nice caps lock, Screamy McShoutypants.
  
  Aside from that, here's what Jeff Price did:
  

  Jeff is also co-founder and was GM / President of the New York based independent record label spinART records for seventeen years. spinART distributed over 200 releases from artists such as: The Pixies, Frank Black, The Eels, John Doe, Apples In Stereo, Vic Chesnutt, Jason Falkner, Richard Thompson, Echo and The Bunnymen, Ron Sexsmith, The Fastbacks, Creeper Lagoon, The Church, Lilys, Clem Snide and more.
  
  In 2004 Jeff contributed to the founding charter and organization of The American Association of Independent Music (AAIM) ? a nonprofit non-governmental trade organization representing the interests of its independent label members.
  
  From 1997 to 2001, Jeff worked with eMusic.com, serving first as a consultant, next as interim VP of Content Acquisition and finally as the Senior Director of Music/Business Development. He contributed towards the creation of eMusic's initial business model and created and implemented the first subscription-based music sales and distribution structure.
  
  In November 2005, Jeff founded TuneCore (with Gary Burke and Peter Wells) based on the fevering belief that every artist should have access to distribution and receive 100% of the revenue from the sale of their music without having to give up any of their rights.

  
  It's right there in TuneCore's bios.
  
  And Jeff Price's figures seem entirely consistent with what everyone else in the industry says. People like Steve Albini, Courtney Love, Janis Ian, Michelle Shocked, Too Much Joy, Danny Goldberg, or The Root.
  
  Nobody paints the same rosy picture as Lowery.

• On the post: Nearly 50,000 People Ask Why The Government Is Seizing Their Digital Files

  

  Karl ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2012 @ 10:09pm

  Re: Re: Re: We the People

  Yeah, please sign this, if you haven't already, and spread the word.
  
  I'm just one guy, I don't have a multi-thousand person mailing list like Demand Progress. I'd still like it to get enough signatures for the petition to be noticed.

• On the post: Free Culture Is The Response To The Ethical Failings Of The Old Entertainment Industry

  

  Karl ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2012 @ 01:45pm

  Re:

  those who bought into the hype and dream of the rock star
  
  Well, there's your problem.

• On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk

  

  Karl ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2012 @ 09:17pm

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

  DH: Don't bother. He will never, ever actually debate (or even pay attention to) any points you make.
  
  He is a spammer for Trichordist. He is trolling to get attention to the site. Don't play his game.

• On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

  

  Karl ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2012 @ 04:16pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...

  well, according to mike there's "not much really to talk about" which makes me wonder why he's still asking what happened last week?
  
  Obviously, he's doing it just to piss you off.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2012 @ 11:53pm

  Re:

  I see the disrespect for music artist David Lowery continues, both from TtfnJohn and Beadon "douchebag".
  
  I am the one who called Lowery a "douchebag." Don't bring TtfnJohn or Beadon into it.
  
  And Lowery is a douchebag. He exploited the tragic deaths of two music artists to advance his anti-tech agenda. He quite literally claimed (without one shred of evidence) that without piracy, Vic Chesnutt and Mark Linkous would still be alive.
  
  This is shameful propaganda in the extreme, and it is utterly disrespectful to Chesnutt and Linkous. It shows just how little Lowery respects his musician "friends."

• On the post: A Business Model Failure Is Not A Moral Issue

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2012 @ 02:39pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  Karl, even the law understanding is debatable
  
  Well, whether his legal arguments are sound (in my opinion they're not), he at least understand the law. You know what they say about lawyers. In the words of Marilyn McNamara:

  If you put ten lawyers in a room with sufficient food, water and oxygen (and access to a bathroom and a telephone, of course), together with a one-page paragraph, plenty of paper and writing implements, you could then leave the premises, have dinner, go to a movie, visit a bar and finally return to find them still arguing about the use of the word ?and? in the third line down.

Next >>