Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260)

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 04:57pm

  Re: Re:

  Why doesn't Google just buy Viacom with a leverage buyout. They could save money on litigation and create a new site that allows for all-you-want on their products for a reasonable fee each month.
  
  I was actually hoping Google would buy EMI, for exactly those reasons. Alas, it was not to be.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 04:47pm

  Re:

  i think they know how much shit is going to be hurled at them if things go against Hotfile.
  
  That shit is getting hurled at them whether they have anything to do with the Hotfile case or not.
  
  I mean, haven't you heard? They're the evil masterminds behind Big Search. They're trying to destroy copyright protection. They are only interested in protecting the current state of piracy, because piracy is a major revenue raiser for them.
  
  And we all know that everyone who opposed SOPA and PROTECT IP only did so because of Google's hyperbolic mistruths and abuse of power.
  
  All of these things are nearly direct quotes from the MPAA, RIAA, and those who defend them.

• On the post: Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?'

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 02:43am

  Re:

  The artist has the copyright, has either signed a limited distribution deal for Austria, or has assigned rights to another distributor who isn't offering the product in the US yet.
  
  Probably true.
  
  Which does not negate the fact that these situations are one of the driving forces behind consumer piracy.
  
  So, the distributor has a choice. Either they can offer the product in that region, or they can accept piracy of their product in that region. Can't have it both ways.
  
  too busy trying to justify piracy.
  
  If you mean file sharing, there is no need to justify it, because it is inherently moral. You are creating abundance from scarcity, the same way Jesus did with the loaves and fishes. You are also helping to spread culture, which is definitely a public good (unless you're someone who believes libraries are evil incarnate).
  
  The only way file sharing could be wrong, is if it causes the copyright holder to lose income. Here, there is no loss of income, even theoretically, because income is not even possible.
  
  I'd also like to point out something. The entire reason copyright exists is to make art available to the general public; it exists solely for the public's benefit.
  
  It is more than a little ironic that copyright is the only reason that this art is completely unavailable to the public.

• On the post: Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?'

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 02:23am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  [note: I'm responding without my real name because my opinions speak for themselves.]
  
  And what an opinion it was!
  
  Why, I was almost swayed by Chris Maresca's rational and relevant arguments, backed up by personal experience and links to sources. But now that I know he's a "sanctimonious jackass about anonymity online?" Wow! My eyes are opened!

• On the post: Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?'

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 02:03am

  Re: Re:

  Do you know why there are no record stores?
  
  Because the major labels deliberately stopped dealing with them, in order to focus on "big box stores" like Wal-Mart or Best Buy?
  
  Because they pushed "hit-friendly" artists, while raising CD prices to $18-$19 and deliberately killing singles?
  
  By the way - which record store did you work at during the 90's? I worked at Tower Records myself.

• On the post: Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?'

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 01:37am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  CLICK HERE FOR FULL REPORT.
  
  Well, THAT'S five hours of my life that I'll never get back.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2012 @ 09:41pm

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

  Clearly, these poeple would be buyers "except"... and that except is that piracy got it to them (select from: cheaper / faster / better / before the box office / before dvd sales day / with russian subtitles).
  
  Not piracy, digital distribution. Netflix, Redbox, iTunes, Amazon, Steam, etc. are just as responsible for customer expectations as piracy is. These are the companies that are responsible for the traditional media industries' "lost profits." And they did it by listening to what customers want. They are successful because they are better at business.
  
  This is why you really need to quit saying things like "those who pirate would otherwise have been customers." That's 100% wrong. Those who pirate are the media industry's best customers right now. Not "would," not "otherwise," are.
  
  But if the media companies keep treating them (and the services, including the legal ones, that cater to them) like "opponents," they won't be customers for much longer.
  
  And neither will the ones who do not pirate - since they have exactly the same consumer expectations as the pirates, and are treated just as much like "opponents."
  
  This, however, is correct:
  
  So either [potential customers] are lost sales worth chasing, or they are not. Which one is it?
  
  If you are not satisfying your customer base, you have two options.
  
  1. Decide they are "lost sales" worth chasing. Find a way to give them what they want, and make money doing it.
  
  2. Decide giving them what they want isn't worth it, and accept the fact that you've just ceded the market to your competition.
  
  Your choice. But if you choose #2, you don't have any right whatsoever to bitch about "lost sales." You're the one who decided to lose them.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2012 @ 11:25pm

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

  Oops, HTML fail.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2012 @ 11:25pm

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

  Go back and read the discussion. I put forth that pirates are NOT customers, so they are of no concern.
  
  Just wanted to point out that this is a total lie.
  
  The discussion was not about pirates, but about opponents to big media companies. Your statement was that any opponent of big media companies, whether they pirate or not, were of no concern.
  
  It was not an attack on piracy, it was an outright dismissal of every single person who voices opinions in opposition to anything the media industries say. And an outright denial that any of those people could possibly be representative of the media industries' customer base (or former customer base)... again, whether they pirate or not.
  
  Here is the only way you described those opponents:
  
  You just have to read the angry statements here, [opponents] would NEVER buy content, [opponents] would NEVER pay for software, and [opponents] certainly wouldn't buy it from the man.
  
  As I (and many others) pointed out, even if this is an accurate view of those "opponents," then it doesn't matter one iota whether they pirate, because you're not going to get their money either way.
  
  I also pointed out that these opponents used to be paying customers, but they were driven away by big media companies who consider them enemies rather than underserved customers.
  
  And, I also brought up the fact that your statements could not possibly describe most pirates, since pirates buy more content than non-pirates.
  
  You somehow thought this meant that piracy hurts sales. That does not follow, and you know it. Specifically, you keep harping on people that pirate rather than buying content. But that's not what most pirates do. As the studies make clear, people pirate in addition to buying content - in fact, pirates buy most of the content media industries put out.
  
  As far as the foreign laws are concerned - you completely proved that you are wrong with this statement:
  
  I don't suggest for a second that local laws have anything to do with release windows. That has everything to do with making the best bottom line, offering your product at price points people are willing to pay, at times that do not erode the high priced markets.
  
  First of all, the discussion was about things like DRM and windowing, which you immediately blamed on regional laws.
  
  But never mind. Your second sentence reveals that it isn't about being prevented from entering markets, it's about refusing to do so. You are not restricted from any market when you are not "making the best bottom line." You are not restricted from any market if you cannot choose "times that do not erode the high priced markets." And only a complete idiot would believe that regional price discrimination is "offering your product at price points people are willing to pay."
  
  This does not describe an industry that has been prevented from entering a market. It describes an industry that actively refuses to enter a market.
  
  That industry is free to do that, of course... but they don't have a right to complain when their refusal to enter a market results in widespread piracy. They were incompetent businessmen who brought it on themselves, and all the finger-pointing in the world won't change that.
  
  You are completely and utterly full of shit.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 09:29pm

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

  I think the question is more "do they want your product"? In the movie business (or music for that matter) you have a unique product.
  
  That's just it: you don't.
  
  The same song can be released on a full-length CD, as an MP3 single, as part of a digital streaming service, etc. It can be released without DRM, regional restrictions, etc.
  
  Though consumers want the latter, the labels actively tried to shut them down. They didn't want - and, frankly, would still do away with if they could - those consumer choices.
  
  Pretending the labels were "forced" into their situation is pure, unadulterated, 100% bullshit.
  
  piracy has created expectations that cannot be met, on price, delivery, and availability.
  
  Yet, services like Amazon, iTunes, Spotify, eMusic, CD Baby, Bandcamp, Netflix, Hulu, Redbox, YouTube, or Steam have all been able to meet consumer expectations - perfectly legally.
  
  And these are the types of businesses that the content industry consider their "opponents."
  
  On the other hand, your insistence that foreign laws are responsible for things like release windows, just doesn't pass the laugh test. Most of the barriers to entry into foreign markets are there because the content industry lobbied for them. For example, DVD region codes were demanded by the MPAA to enable release windows, as well as allow regional price discrimination, and to prevent purchases in countries where they wouldn't get (enough) royalties. They certainly weren't forced on them in order to comply with local laws.
  
  Yes, there are local laws to consider, but I've yet to see any story (even in the trade magazines that I read) about how "foreign barriers" are keeping content creators from entering markets. Unless those "foreign barriers" are "not acting enough like jackbooted thugs against internet pirates."
  
  Nearly every penny that the RIAA, MPAA, etc. spends lobbying Washington goes into legislation like SOPA and PROTECT IP - which do absolutely zero to address what you're talking about.
  
  I've yet to hear anyone from the RIAA or MPAA advocate for - or even talk about - doing away with regional restrictions. The only thing regarding foreign countries that they've ever endorsed is "enforcing IP protections abroad." And doing so solely to preserve exactly the things consumers don't like about their products... like regional restrictions on content.
  
  So, sorry, I don't believe a word you're saying.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 07:21pm

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

  Whether I pirate the product later or not, the sale is just as lost the moment I decide you don't deserve my money.
  
  Exactly this.
  
  The only thing that matters, from a business standpoint, is if they are convinced to purchase your product. If you cannot convince them, it matters not one iota whether they pirate or not.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 07:15pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  Clearly people who pirate could be customers, and therefore piracy costs.
  
  Again, this is is logically unsound. Pirates "could" be customers (as can anyone else). It does not follow that piracy costs.
  
  You have to limit your discussion of "cost" to exactly two groups of people: people who pirate instead of being customers; and people who are customers because they can pirate.
  
  The fact that pirates buy more legal content shows that the fist group of people is statistically insignificant.
  
  The second group of people have never even been considered in any industry study (hardly surprising). Independent studies have suggested that technology that allows the opportunity for piracy also increases sales - for example, areas that acquire higher broadband speeds also start buying more DVD's.
  
  Of course, correlation is not causation, so nobody can say for sure one way or the other.
  
  On thing that is undeniable is that people have been spending more money on content since piracy became mainstream. That money is spread out more thinly among competing services (Netflix vs. cable vs. DVD's, MP3 singles vs. live shows vs. album-length CD's, music vs. movies vs. video games, etc). But the amount of consumer spending, overall, has only increased.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 06:41pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Open source created no such thing.
  
  Here are some companies that depend on open source for their profits:
  
  Google: Android, Chrome, YouTube
  Apple (OSX runs on a BSD kernel)
  Firefox
  Apache
  Oracle
  
  Plus, everyone who ever used Linux, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, PHP, Ruby, Python, Java, JavaScript, jQuery, HTML, CSS, PNG, Wordpress, Joomla, Drupal, or pretty much any other web technology in existence.
  
  Meaning: every company who ever made money on the Internet. Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo!, eBay, Netflix, etc etc - all of them would not exist without open source software.
  
  So, yeah. Billion dollar companies. Not even a slight exaggeration.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 06:18pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  If they are customers, but are instead turning to piracy, would you say that piracy as a result costs sales?
  
  That would be a valid question, except for the word "instead."
  
  Let me rephrase that question from the opposite viewpoint, and you'll immediately see why it's a loaded question:
  
  "If they are customers, and because of piracy are exposed to more music which they then buy, would you say that piracy as a result costs sales?"
  
  Clearly, for most music lovers, file sharing and buying music are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure many will choose not to buy music because they can pirate it; but they will also choose to buy more music because they were exposed to it through piracy.
  
  What the studies show is that piracy does not make people spend less money on music overall. Quite the opposite.
  
  Here's my own explanation. Piracy makes music more ubiquitous, makes it a larger part of peoples' daily lives (like radio did). Exposure to more music, makes music more valuable on a personal level. It's a pretty common refrain: "Since I started using [insert file sharing service], I've rediscovered all that great music I'd forgot about" and/or "discovered a whole shitload of music that I never knew existed." I can't think of a single file-sharing friend who didn't say this to me (and when I was still file sharing, years ago, I said this myself).
  
  Piracy creates value. It is up to the music industry to turn that value into income. They can only do this by creating reasons to turn value into price, and they can only do that if they listen to what those potential customers (the pirates) want. If they're unwilling to do that, then they're sunk - and deservedly so.
  
  It's not impossible to do. It's just that the ones in the music industry who are actually doing it (most of which are internet-related) are considered "opponents."

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 05:49pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Driven away by what, exactly?
  
  Like, everything I just mentioned in my post? Price fixing? Consistently fucking over the artists that work with them? Pushing for laws that would punish entirely legal sites that customers like? Demanding outrageous damages in lawsuits against teenagers and single mothers? Censorship of websites?
  
  Even all this may have been overlooked if the industry offered products that were compelling. They don't. People would rather buy MP3 singles than full-length CD's. They'd rather stream videos than pay for (or even rent) DVD's. They ran screaming from MusicNet and Pressplay. The latest "QR code" campaign is laughable.
  
  On the other hand, all of the legal sites that give customers what they want - YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, eMusic, Spotify, etc. - were fought tooth-and-nail by the content industries; most even got sued (and won). They're even painting sites that don't actually offer content (like Google search) as "pro-piracy."
  
  The message to consumers is clear. "We'll offer content in ways you don't like, stomp on anyone who offers it in ways you do like (legal or not), and trample on free speech, privacy, and an open internet while we're at it. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself."
  
  That is why people don't like the content industries. That is why you have people that will "NEVER buy content" from them if they can help it (whether piracy exists or not).

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 02:10pm

  Re: Re:

  Most of those people would NEVER pirate it, either.
  
  More to the point: Even if they couldn't pirate it, they still would NEVER buy it.
  
  Mostly because they've been driven away by the very content producers who depend on them for income.
  
  That is the problem.

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

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 01:57pm

  Re:

  They aren't customers, that is the problem. You just have to read the angry statements here,
  
  Their "opponents" come from more than just Techdirt's little corner of the universe.
  
  Do you honestly believe that out of the millions and millions of people who opposed SOPA, none were customers? That's completely idiotic.
  
  You're also, once again, ignoring the many, many independent studies that show that people who pirate BUY MORE MUSIC than people who do not. It varies from region to region, but at a minimum, pirates buy twice as much music as non-pirates.
  
  Yes. Their opponents are their customers. Ignoring that is their entire problem.
  
  they would NEVER buy content, they would NEVER pay for software, and they certainly wouldn't buy it from the man.
  
  Most of those people would NEVER pirate it, either.
  
  I'm one of those people who almost never pays for music from a major label. (Maybe one song per year.)
  
  Does that mean I pirate it? Nope. Not interested. I've got enough music (that I got legally, usually from the artists personally) to keep me occupied for the next ten years.
  
  This is not to say such people don't exist. But you're not telling the full story about them.
  
  They used to be nothing but paying customers. Then the RIAA started suing teenagers and grannies; started calling them "thieves;" started pushing for laws that would invade those customers' personal laws; and acted against the legal services those customers loved.
  
  All the while, they continued to screw over artists and collude to artificially inflate prices.
  
  If those people "would NEVER buy content," it is only because the RIAA were such assholes that they drove away their paying customers.
  
  That's just music, of course. As for video and gaming, Netflix and Steam prove you're wrong. Both services took people who you think "would NEVER buy content," sold it to exactly those same people, and made millions (in Steam's case, almost a billion).

• On the post: Bruce Springsteen, Another Pirate Remixer!

  

  Karl ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2012 @ 01:13pm

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

  Please stop trying to equate a musician using sheet music with somebody sampling a pre-existing recording because that's just insulting.
  
  I went to college to study music composition. My main instrument was the guitar. (Admittedly, I was never close to Bream's level.)
  
  I also have made, and listen to, sample-based music.
  
  It is just as hard to make good sample-based music as it is to play a guitar piece.
  
  That's not insulting, it's the way it is.
  
  You may be "insulted" because the only sample-based music you've heard is utter crap like this:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwb9jOVRtU
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySuMIK190oQ
  
  But keep in mind, 90% of musicians who play their instruments sound like this:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybDCObQRRM4

• On the post: Lester Chambers, Successful Musician Who Received No Royalties From '67 To '94, Planning To Sue

  

  Karl ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2012 @ 06:19pm

  Re: My challenge to TechDirt readers and commenters

  If I had $100 to spare, I'd do it.

• On the post: Lester Chambers, Successful Musician Who Received No Royalties From '67 To '94, Planning To Sue

  

  Karl ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2012 @ 04:43pm

  Re: Re: Hmmm

  Copyright is the lifetime of the person + 70-90 years, so...
  
  Yes, yes he can.
  
  Some minor points.
  
  Copyright lasts for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years.
  
  It only lasts longer if it is a work for hire, or if the author is unknown. In that case, it lasts for 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first).
  
  Also, I think Mike42 was talking about the termination rights granted under 17 USC 203. Unfortunately, termination rights only apply to contracts signed after 1978.
  
  Here's something weird. If Chambers died during the initial 28-year copyright term (i.e. before 1995), then his widow or children would legally get the rights to the renewed terms (another 67 years). In that case, they would have the right to terminate the contract.
  
  It's an odd day when Chambers has a better chance of being treated fairly when he's dead, but that's copyright for ya.

Next >>