Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 07:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: kill MPAA/RIAA

    That article is kind of bs since those figures are only guesses.

    The Spotify payouts are not guesses; the guesses are for terrestrial radio - something that Billboard, the voice of the industry for decades, should be knowledgeable about.

    And this is an important point to consider. Terrestrial radio has never paid out big money either, and it was furthermore restricted to major labels. So, whatever pittance an indie artist is making through Spotify, it is exactly one pittance more than they would have been able to make otherwise.

    Incidentally, this series of posts tells a different story about Spotify:
    http://www.spotidj.com/spotifyroyalties.htm

    ...But whatever your problem with a single Internet music service, the plain fact is that many other "free to the user" services (e.g. YouTube) have been instrumental in helping indie artists get paid, something the traditional industry has never done.

  • On the post: 70 Groups Tell Congress To Put The Brakes On Any Further Efforts To Expand Intellectual Property

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 06:14am

    Re:

    Looks mostly like the same group of whiners...

    Yep. Whiners like the American Library Association, Amnesty International, Free Press Action Fund, Human Rights Watch, and Women's Media Center. Thieves, the lot of them!

  • On the post: 70 Groups Tell Congress To Put The Brakes On Any Further Efforts To Expand Intellectual Property

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 06:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Everyone knows this. You aren't fooling anybody.

    Translation: I believe my own prejudices. Therefore, everyone else must believe them too.

  • On the post: 70 Groups Tell Congress To Put The Brakes On Any Further Efforts To Expand Intellectual Property

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 05:58am

    Re:

    Like an industry that has been making money off others via loopholes in the DMCA?

    Not a single signatory has been "making money off others via loopholes in the DMCA."

    Furthermore, the DMCA does not have any loopholes. It is currently working exactly as it was designed. If anything, it is biased too heavily in favor of the rights holders.

  • On the post: Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2012 @ 04:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: kill MPAA/RIAA

    But now, people would rather pirate a TV show than watch it on legit sites that make them watch 2 stinking 10 second ads.

    Plenty of people flock to Hulu. In fact, nobody minds the ads, they mind that they have to wait anywhere from a week to a month to watch shows.

    It would also help if the advertisers and other "free to consumer" services like spotify actually paid the artist a fair amount of money...

    You do realize that Spotify's royalties are greater than terrestrial radio's, right?
    Business Matters: Why Spotify Royalties Are Greater Than Radio Royalties

    It's not the tech companies that aren't paying a fair price for their content. Traditional media companies treat artists far, far worse than tech companies ever could. That's because traditional media companies' only business model is based upon ripping off artists. If they didn't make ten to twenty times what you do from your art, they'd be out of business. Tech companies in general have other (better) revenue streams.

  • On the post: Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now

    Karl ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2012 @ 11:43pm

    Re: Re: kill MPAA/RIAA

    People deserve to get paid fairly for their work.

    Yes, they absolutely do.

    Fortunately, "free to the consumer" does not necessarily mean that artists don't get paid. For example, over-the-air radio and TV were able to pay actors and musicians without charging the public.

    Unfortunately, the MPAA and RIAA now consider that business model to be piracy.

  • On the post: Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case

    Karl ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2012 @ 08:03pm

    Re:

    All of their good work ends up negated by their current adversarial approaches when it comes to dealing with any content creator.

    Here's a thought: maybe those "content creators" (in reality: corporations that leech off of artists) should stop trying to do away with civil rights.

  • On the post: Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case

    Karl ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2012 @ 07:54pm

    Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

    The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

    I debunked this myth days ago.

    That you are still repeating this utter lie is shameful.

  • On the post: Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now

    Karl ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2012 @ 06:30pm

    Re:

    LOLCATS DA MUSICAL!!!!

    Too late:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEix6VlLqwU

  • On the post: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

    Karl ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2012 @ 03:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You do realize, of course, that these incredibly long copyright terms were "birthed" in France, which had well-know authors advocating for perpetual terms?

    You do realize, of course, that France's "copyright" laws were largely based on droit d'auteur, or "moral rights?" That the rights artists wanted (and got) were essentially what is covered in CC-BY? That in most countries, they cannot be waived?

    And that the economic rights granted to authors - even in countries with moral rights - are considered different? That in some countries, economic rights (sometimes called "material rights") are term-limited, but moral rights have no term limit whatsoever?

    So: The U.S. lengthened copyright terms to match the lengths of foreign rights that the U.S. doesn't even recognize, and exist for completely different reasons.

  • On the post: Neil Young: Piracy Is The New Radio (But The Quality Sucks)

    Karl ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2012 @ 09:55pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    defund an entire industry so almost no new artist can break in to it or even pay for gas money

    This is nonsense for two reasons.

    First, major labels never helped new artists "break in to it." In order to get signed, you had to have already been successful, either on your own or (more likely) on an underground label. Either that, or your family was already working for a label, and you got signed due to nepotism (hello, Lily Allen!).

    Second, artists are making more money than they were twenty years ago. People are spending more money on music than they were in the 90's, and more of that money is going directly to artists themselves (B2B, merch, live, even digital sales).

    So, if you're an artist who isn't making money now, there's no way in hell you would have made any in the 90's, either.

  • On the post: Warner Bros. Just Keeps Pushing People To Piracy; New Deal Also Delays Queuing

    Karl ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2012 @ 06:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So since you can't afford something, you think you're magically entitled to just illegally obtain it for free?

    His point was that, with or without piracy, those without the necessary disposable income wouldn't have paid for the content in any case.

    So, it is not lucrative, for either those people nor for the content creators. It is not a lost sale, and those people would not be saving money (since there was nothing to "save").

    It has absolutely nothing to do with any sense of "entitlement." It actually does not have anything to do with obtaining it for free, either.

  • On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Karl ( profile ), 30 Jan, 2012 @ 09:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike = Lobbyist

    Wow. You are really one huge liar, I'll give you that. Frankly, the lies are so pervasive, that I honestly think you've gone over to the tin-foil hat brigade. You sound exactly like that guy Bob who actually believes that the EFF is a front for Google.

    Your whole post is so chock-full of lies, lunacy, and broadbrush scapegoating, that I'd have to write a book to point out how much you're wrong. This is about as brief as I can be:

    Mike's business models (and pretty much every "new" model proposed here) requires first that piracy decimate the existing industry.

    Lie. Not a single part of Mikes business models require that piracy decimate the existing industry. In fact, if the existing industry actually used them, it would make money. Plenty of artists who are on major labels have used them, and made more money because of it.

    If piracy is combated, or at least kept in check, the new business models don't tend to flourish.

    Another lie. If you're using Mike's business model, nobody is pirating anything.

    And the only reason those "new business models don't tend to flourish" is because the MPAA/RIAA's version of "combatting piracy" is "attacking new technology." The legitimate and legal businesses are the ones who suffer because of it, not the "pirates."

    First there is the push against copyright and patents, and a significant push to increase "fair use" (thanks EFF!).

    The EFF has never pushed to increase fair use. Just to keep it from being effectively abolished. In fact, the only ones who are trying to change the laws about "fair use" are the MPAA/RIAA - who apparently want to do away with it altogether (despite the fact that their industries depend upon it for their existence).

    And the EFF is not the only, nor even the primary, organization concerned about fair use. There's been a far stronger push from libraries, for example.

    In order for this sort of thing to happen, you have to cut copyright off at the knees, do away with or severely limit the rights of songwriters, artists, and creators alike.

    The idea that fair use harms artists is complete lunacy. It benefits them. They depend on it for their livelihood. For example, how may news organizations would have been buried under lawsuits without it?

    Then you have the push to destroy markets through piracy.

    Another lie. Even the pirates don't want to "destroy markets" in most cases. If there is any desire among the populace to "destroy markets," it comes from average citizens, who are so justifiably disgusted at traditional media companies (for copyright reasons and more) that supporting traditional media is socially toxic nowadays.

    And, of course, not a bit of Mike's business models would destroy the markets of anyone. They would help the market, even the market of the traditional media industries. Destroying markets isn't even on the table.

    The recorded music business is down more than 50% in 10 years, including all of the "successes" of online sales such as Itunes.

    Yes, they've declined to where they were before CD's were introduced. Oh, the horror.

    It is precisely because of the successes of online sales such as iTunes that the recorded music business is down. People are moving away from physical media, to far more convenient (and cheaper) digital media; they are buying more single tracks than albums; they are straming more songs from Spotify, buying more media from eMusic. It is precisely because the traditional labels were and still are trying to avoid digital distribution that they are failing.

    Then, there's also the competition from DVD sales, games, and other forms of entertainment, all of which cannibalize CD sales. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. economy has been slowly sliding into the toilet for the past twenty years.

    Piracy has very little to do with it.

    The third step is the usual grinding stone called "infinite distribution". It only exists in reality in a very few ways, either through P2P (almost entirely pirate traffic) or through file lockers (ditto...).

    Another lie. You don't need to distribute stuff through the Pirate Bay or Megaupload in order to have "infinite distribution." Take a look at Techdirt's Case Stories section. Very, very few of the cases there are distributing anything through "pirate channels." (Though, of course, it bears mentioning that those who do distribute through "pirate channels" end up better of than they would be if they didn't.) Most are setting up "infinite distribution" on their own websites, or taking advantage of infinite distribution through Bandcamp or YouTube.

    It has nothing to do with piracy.

    If the general new music business model (give it away online, sell them concert tickets and merch at the shows) was truly successful, we would be seeing a massive groundswell of unknown, indie style bands taking over the music industry.

    For one thing, "give it away online, sell them concert tickets and merch" is not Mike's business model, never was, and he's made this clear over and over and over again. It's a straw man, and you know it, liar.

    For another thing, we are seeing a growth in indie music. It hasn't "taken over the music industry," because then it wouldn't be indie music by definition, but indie musicians represent a far greater portion of the overall music industry than they did in the 90's.

    Net, between recorded music sales and live sales, we haven't seen any great increases. It nets out.

    Another lie. Between recorded music sales and the greater music industry (including live sales), the music industry as a whole is growing. Even with the drop in record income.

    Until someone says "here is an alternate business model that doesn't require killing the existing model through illegal means", you can have a discussion of valid and functional business models.

    A huge, gigantic, whopper of a lie. Zero of what Techdirt talks about "requires killing the existing model through illegal means."

    And notice how you phrased it: "Until someone says..." It is nobody else's job to give you a business model. If you're in the media industry, it's your job, and your job alone to adapt to a changing marketplace. And "adapt" doesn't mean "litigate that changing marketplace out of existence."

    And that is the only thing you've been saying here. That you can't adapt. Just listen to yourself:

    "Our business model will fail unless we regulate the free flow of information."
    "Our business model will fail if infinite distribution exists."
    "Our business model will fail if fair use isn't curtailed."
    "Our business model will fail if anyone else succeeds."

    This is not a sign of a healthy business model. It's the sign of a group of formerly-bloated gatekeepers (and, yes, "gatekeepers" is exactly the right word) who can't keep up now that the gates are open.

    That should be no surprise. Even at its peak, the music industry was running on a horrible business model. According to the RIAA itself, 9 out of 10 acts on a major label didn't recoup their costs. That is a 90% failure rate. Any other industry would have folded decades ago. And they said this in the late 90's, when record label profits were more than they had been in their entire history. (It also bears mentioning that if you're an artist on a major label, you don't see dime one from artist royalties until you're recouped, meaning 90% of recording artists on major labels made no money whatsoever from record royalties.)

    The business model you're defending is a failure. It always was a failure. It is time for the industry to adapt, and if they do not, then they should die and get out of the way so new music industries can form.

  • On the post: MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'

    Karl ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2012 @ 07:21pm

    Re: Re: Fast, not free

    many of the same people complaining (correctly so) about sopa/pipa were also taking sides with Megaupload

    You don't have to take sides with Megaupload to believe that the government's actions against them were completely unwarranted.

  • On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Karl ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2012 @ 07:14pm

    Re: Re: Mike = Lobbyist

    He is lobbying to keep his business and business models functional - you know, the ones that require widespread piracy to make things go around.

    And here we see how much of an unapologetic liar you are.

    Not a single one of Mike's business models "require widespread piracy." Not one.

    And if going to Washington to represent your own interests makes you a "lobbying firm," then just about every business in America is a "lobbying firm."

    I actually hope you're also lying about being a paid lobbyist. If not, you're just a pathetic loser, tilting at windmills for God knows what reason. At least if you were a lobbyist, you might finally get off the food stamps.

  • On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Karl ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2012 @ 06:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike = Lobbyist

    A screaming minority is like that one crying child on a plane: They can make everyone else's trip truly unendurable.

    Man, tell me about it. We've had to listen to the screaming minorities at the RIAA and MPAA for twenty years, at least. They really are trying to make everyone else's trip (i.e. the Internet) truly unendurable. The majority of the people in the Senate will do almost anything to shut up those crying children.

  • On the post: MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'

    Karl ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2012 @ 02:51pm

    Re: Google

    they do the analysis like this

    Good Lord, Hart has really gone off the deep end with this one. Even a cursory glance at the EFF's funding, for example, shows that Google's involvement is pretty much non-existent.

  • On the post: Public Interest Groups Speak Out About Next Week's Secret Meeting In Hollywood To Negotiate TPP (Think International SOPA)

    Karl ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2012 @ 01:56pm

    Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

    The EFF is funded by Google's charity.

    The EFF predates Google by nearly a decade. The EFF was founded in 1990, Google in 1998.

    Furthermore, the EFF's Annual Report (PDF) lists a number of companies and foundations that gave them money (on page 15). Google is not among them. In fact, not a single search engine is, as far as I can tell.

    Their funding sources, from greatest to least, are: membership income; foundation grants; individual major donations; corporate contributions; and litigation. (There are more, but these are the only sources that gave the EFF more than $100,000.) Total corporate contributions account for less than 15% of the EFF's funding.

    The idea that the EFF is a "front" for Google (or any other "Big Search" company) is an outright, bald-faced lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Karl ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2012 @ 01:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    My question is posed to understand why law tolerates on and not the other

    The law tolerates neither. That was my point. You're trying to make it apply to one, but not the other, so I'll ask you again: why do you think a web-blocking scheme that is unconstitutional prior restraint when applied to child pornography, suddenly becomes constitutional when applied to copyright infringement?

  • On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Karl ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2012 @ 12:07am

    Re:

    I think I got this one.

    Would you kindly articulate your position in sufficient detail for some to understand why you believe agreements such as ACTA must be submitted to Congress for approval? Certainly treaties, having the force and effect of law, are the proper subject of advice and consent per Article 2, Section 2.

    I'm assuming you mean this clause?

    [The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

    Seems pretty obvious why the Senate should concur.

    Trade agreements, whether Congressional Trade Agreements or Executive Agreements do not carry the force and effect of law.

    So, you're saying ACTA is not binding on U.S. law? That seems to be the case to me as well, but I'm sure other signatories would like to hear about it.

    It would likewise prove helpful to understand your position why issues associated with DNS under SOPA are problematic given that to a lesser extent pertubation of the DNS system is currently being practiced with respect to certain types of subject matter such as child pornography.

    Ah, the "kiddie porn" argument.

    There are significant differences. Child pornography, unlike copyrighted content, is contraband; that is, it is not allowed in any case, authorized or not. You can tell by the content when material is child pornography; you cannot tell by the content whether that content is authorized or not.

    Also, it is not the case that you can block the DNS of a server merely based on child pornography being present. That is unconstitutional prior restraint:

    the current pertubation associated with child pornography does not seem to cause any due process and First Amendment objections

    The "current pertubation" absolutely does cause First Amendment objections. In fact, the same blacklisting scheme was found to be an unconstitutional prior restraint when applied to child pornography. See CDT v. Pappert. Other bans on child pornography were also found to be unconstitutional; see e.g. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

    You, on the other hand, are arguing that a scheme that is unconstitutional prior restraint when applied to child pornography suddenly becomes constitutional merely because it applies to copyright infringement. This seems to me to be a total stretch.

    And it is not, at all, "a matter of scale." It is a matter of substance. Copyright infringement is not, never was, and never shall be as much of a social harm as child pornography. Pretending it even could be, is just pathetic.

Next >>