Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 03 May, 2012 @ 08:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate?

    And the statement made is that artists shouldn't be paid when they are not working.

    For the record: not everyone here agrees with that general sentiment. For example, I do not. I find the (minority) of posters who say stuff like "stop feeling entitled and get to work" to be pretty reprehensible.

    But I also know that the people who say this are not defending piracy. In fact, they are providing their own answer to the question you just asked.

    That answer is that you get paid for your labor. In other words, you get paid before you do this:

    I do do some work, and I record my album.

    The Kickstarter model is a great example of this, but there are tons of examples from the traditional music industry that also work. Work-for-hire musicians, "songwriting camps," etc.

    And, incidentally, nothing is stopping you from selling your music, even if it is pirated. Your music being available on The Pirate Bay won't prevent you from putting your music on iTunes or Amazon, it won't prevent you from selling CD's at shows or in stores, etc.

    Incidentally, this is the main difference between pirate sites and major labels. According to the RIAA, 90% of music does not recoup; and until you recoup, the recording artists earn nothing from record sales. So, in the end, neither one pays artists; both help artists only by providing promotion. But major labels prevent you from selling your own music; pirate sites don't.

    The people who get your music illicitly are the same people who are more likely to pay for music from legitimate sources. Every single independent study has shown that pirates spend more on music than non-pirates. There is no reason that someone who downloads your music will not pay you in some other way (merch, live, different music, etc), or even buy the same music through legitimate channels later.

    If they don't do it after they've downloaded your album, they wouldn't have done it if they couldn't download your album, either. One involves piracy, the other does not, but either way, you don't get paid.

    And either way, that's nobody's problem but yours.

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 02 May, 2012 @ 09:12pm

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

    spotify does not sell records.

    "That argument is absolutely bogus. What we are seeing is that all these new services and new subscription packages are exploding without compromising or cannibalizing other revenue streams."

    Who was it that said that? Some freetard pirate who wants to do nothing but rip artists off?

    It was Rob Wells, president of Universal Music Group's global digital business sector.

    ...So, maybe the answer is "yes."

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 02 May, 2012 @ 09:03pm

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

    long time reader, first time poster.

    Wow, seriously? We all can see that you're the same idiot who's already vomited nonsense all over this thread. For fuck's sake, you even have the same gravitar.

    By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 02 May, 2012 @ 06:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    just show me that contract and terms from the Pirate Bay

    You didn't say The Pirate Bay. You said "tech corporate fat cats," which the Pirate Bay is not.

    Trying to lump in all tech companies with the Pirate Bay is simply libelous.

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 02 May, 2012 @ 05:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    please explain how the pirate bay is paying artists

    If not paying artists is the same as ripping them off, then 99.99% of America is ripping me off.

    Obviously it doesn't work that way. If one of my albums is shared on The Pirate Bay, then my bank account isn't any lighter because of it.

    And, no, The Pirate Bay is not ripping anyone off, because they don't offer, nor make money off of, anyone's content. They make money off of advertising to users, and those users share content, but that's not the same thing. The users are (mostly) not trying to rip anyone off; they're fans who like sharing music. The Pirate Bay is the place where they go to do it.

    I'm not saying The Pirate Bay is hunky-dory for all musicians, but they're clearly not the bugaboo the record industry says they are. And, if you're an up-and-coming artist, you can certainly use them (for free!) to get more popular, and make more money. Many have.

    this is my first post today

    You know, there are these things called "Gravatars." Because of them, we can tell that you're lying.

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 02 May, 2012 @ 07:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Spotify pays artists way less than any label ever did.

    But they pay more than terrestrial radio, which is their closest analog equivalent.

    You think I'm grateful to Google who post links to my work on pirate sites, then make some money from advertising off my loss.

    You think Google posts links to your work on pirate sites? That's utterly ridiculous. Not even the rabid Google haters claim this.

    And none of the big "pirate sites" use Adwords. I'm sure there are a few that slip through the cracks, but almost none of Google's profits come from them.

    On the other hand, if you're a YouTube partner, most people can make more money from YouTube videos than they ever could from traditional media companies. (Not hard, since the amount of money most artists make from traditional media companies is zero.)

    Besides, "tech corporate fat cats" don't just include Google and Spotify. It also includes iTunes (which pays much more directly to artists than labels ever did), Amazon, SoundCloud, CD Baby, Tunecore, etc.

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 02 May, 2012 @ 12:02am

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

    every lost sale can be attributed to an illegal download.

    This is a joke, right?

    A "lost sale" is simply a consumer who decided not to buy your particular product, for any reason. That can't be attributed solely to "illegal downloads" even in the wettest dreams of a lonely RIAA lobbyist.

    Every potential customer who decides the price is too high is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who can't get the product because of regional restrictions is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who won't buy your product because of restrictive DRM is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who decides to pay rent instead is a "lost sale."

    Most importantly of all, every potential customer who buys an MP3 instead of a CD is counted as a "lost sale" - at least if you're talking about the drop in revenue to the recording industry post-2004.

    Illegal downloads have very little to do with it.

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 01 May, 2012 @ 11:48pm

    Re: Re: honesty

    the majority of people (62%) downloaded their album without paying for it.

    You missed the second part of the headline: "Even with only a minority paying for the album, a former record industry executive estimates that Radiohead may not have done too badly."

    The number of people who don't pay for an album means absolutely nothing. What matters is if more people paid than would have otherwise, and how much of that goes directly to the band.

    In the end, it turns out that Radiohead made more from that record than from any record they put out on EMI. That's really the only thing that matters... at least if you're truly pro-artist.

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 01 May, 2012 @ 11:40pm

    Re: Re:

    but what's worse is that this isn't about downloaders, it's about the internet and tech corporate fat cats getting rich of your work

    Nice rant, but you're totally wrong. The "tech corporate fat cats" treat artists 100x better than record labels ever did, which is why the labels are running scared.

    El-P, I'm glad you stopped by. Artists' voices are always welcome here. But please do not listen to idiot shills like this guy, for everyone's sake (especially yours).

  • On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

    Karl ( profile ), 01 May, 2012 @ 11:36pm

    I wont be caught trying to put band aids on cracks in the dam. I'd rather let that bitch flood and build a boat.

    This deserves to be plastered all over the walls of Congress and every boardroom across the whole of the United States. Seriously.

  • On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter

    Karl ( profile ), 01 May, 2012 @ 04:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts

    that would suggest that those who chip in money have assigned a value to a concept and rate music lower than a watch or a game.

    I don't think that's true at all. It's just that there are a lot more musicians on Kickstarter than there are video game developers or watchmakers.

    If you add up all the money given to musicians, vs. the money given to watchmakers and video game developers, I'd wager that more people gave money, total, to musicians. In fact, I'd say it wouldn't even be close.

  • On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter

    Karl ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2012 @ 11:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts

    I'm guessing that fans already know they can get the recorded music for free anyway, and in most cases there's no reward compelling enough to get lots of people to pay in advance for it.

    Or, maybe they know that music can be done with fewer people, and significantly less investment, than even an indie video game. Think about it: an indie game needs music, and the costs to produce that music will be about equal to your average band's recording costs.

    Just a theory. Also, do you have any evidence whatsoever that people consider music to be "more free" than video games? I can't see it, especially since most video games are moving to a "free to play" model (and making money doing that).

  • On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter

    Karl ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2012 @ 11:07pm

    Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts

    it costs considerably less to record a song that has already been written

    Please tell me where you thought Amanda was recording "a song that has already been written."

    Well, unless you mean written by her... in which case, that means you're saying record labels are saving money, too. After all, most of the songs artists record for record labels are songs "that have already been written" - by themselves.

  • On the post: Prolific DVD Bootlegger Is 92 Year-Old WWII Veteran

    Karl ( profile ), 29 Apr, 2012 @ 08:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Downloading is not a crime. Uploading is.

    The A.C. is right, this is also unlawful. When you download, you make a reproduction, which is an infringement of the copyright owner's 106(a) right.

    It is not, however, a crime, because it doesn't rise to the level of criminal infringement - unless that single download was somehow worth more than $1000.

  • On the post: Prolific DVD Bootlegger Is 92 Year-Old WWII Veteran

    Karl ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2012 @ 03:44pm

    Re:

    isn't it considered illegal to have pirated movies in your possession?

    I was actually curious about this myself a while back. So, I did a bunch of research, and read every law I could find.

    The answer? As far as I can tell, it is not unlawful in any way to possess counterfeit DVD's. As far as I can tell, it's not even unlawful to buy them.

    In neither case is it copyright infringement; none of the 106 rights cover purchasing or possession (just copying and distribution). And I could not find any other law that made these things unlawful. At least not at a federal level; I didn't look at every state law. On the other hand, state copyright laws cannot cover the same materials as federal copyright laws, so I don't know if states would even be allowed to make possession or purchasing unlawful.

    I am not a lawyer, of course. If any of our usual law-spouting trolls would care to chime in, I'm all ears.

  • On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use… And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It

    Karl ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2012 @ 07:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud

    It's only copyfraud when claiming false ownership of the public domain.

    No, that is one of the times it is copyfraud.

    Prof. Mazzone has written an entire book on the subject, one that was one of Techdirt's book club selections. He goes into a lot more detail in the book.

    But, in case you don't feel like reading it, you can just look at the Wikipedia entry:

    Mazzone describes copyfraud as:
    - Claiming copyright ownership of public domain material.
    - Imposition by a copyright owner of restrictions beyond what the law allows.
    - Claiming copyright ownership on the basis of ownership of copies or archives.
    - Claiming copyright ownership by publishing a public domain work in a different medium.

    Emphasis added to show that Mazzone use the term copyfraud exactly how Mike is using it.

    p.s. You're accusing Mike of being dramatic?

  • On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use… And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It

    Karl ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2012 @ 06:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud

    It's even been used in The Register.

    Incidentally, I am not advocating what the Register said about the situation. I am only showing that it is not merely a legal term.

    (Side note: The Register really gets it wrong. For example, it says: "Now Creative Commons seeks expanded authority to administer the Public Domain, by issuing a 'Creative Commons Public Domain License,' as if it was a sublicense of its own invention. Creative Commons is trying to expand its licensing authority over not just newly created works, but all public domain works." What it fails to mention, of course, is that Creative Commons is not a licensing authority. It does not grant licenses to any CC material whatsoever, it provides licenses for others to use.)

  • On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use… And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It

    Karl ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2012 @ 06:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud

    dwg:

    When you make up a pithy term that incorporates a legal term with a long history and clearly defined set of standards and you then inject that new term into a legal discussion

    This is not a law blog. This is only tangentially a legal discussion.

    You do realize "copyfraud" is not a legal term, right? It's not solely "copyright misuse."

    As an example, it's closer to the term "plagiarism." In most cases, plagiarism is not against the law (unless it's also copyright infringement). Instead, it is considered dishonest and unethical, regardless of its status as legally actionable.

    That's what "copyfraud" describes. A general term that describes overreach by copyright holders, regardless of whether it's legally actionable, because it's dishonest and unethical.

    As Everyone who even remotely cares about copyright has heard the term before. It's even been used in The Register. I honestly don't know how you think Mike is "injecting" it into the conversation, especially since it's a perfect description for what the publishers are doing.

  • On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use… And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It

    Karl ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2012 @ 06:51am

    Re: I'm confused

    Did he ask for permission, was turned down, and then didn't use the image?

    I'm guessing this is what happened.

    In that case there shouldn't be any problem.

    Well, Suzanne, this is the problem:

    But the bigger issue to me is actually the chilling effects that this situation has had. After sharing all of these details with me, I asked if he would be okay with me publishing the story with the full details. And he refused. [...] And that's the classic tale of a chilling effect of copyright law. Scaring people into not speaking up or not presenting their story.

  • On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use… And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It

    Karl ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2012 @ 07:10pm

    Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud

    Denying someone a license isn't, to my mind, "imposition . . . of restrictions beyond what the law allows."

    If you're even demanding a license to something that does not need a license in the first place, then it's likely copyfraud. Of course, because fair use is not cut-and-dry (requiring a judge's determination), its equally not as cut-and-dry that this is copyfraud.

    But, copyfraud or not, one thing is clear: this absolutely did have a chilling effect. Not just in regards to the article itself, but in regards to being scared into silence about even talking about the discussion with the publisher.

Next >>