The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677) comment rss

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 07:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    Bullshit. Authors sell stories and words. Period.

    Ice men used to sell ice. The market changed, due to technological advances in refrigeration, and now selling ice is a very small market. (e.g. Crap, I'm out of ice and have 15 people coming over in 30 minutes!) Furthermore, there are very, very few people who sell just ice.

    While I doubt it, it could be that selling "stories and words" is no longer a self sustaining business. Many forms of art are not self sustaining, (i.e., the artists needs another source of income-- think of the poor ice sculptors!!) and it may well be that writing will end up in this category.

    Be creative about your business model or get a new job. It sucks, but that's the way it works.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 07:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking

    That would be false advertising, wouldn't it? If you printed something clearly false, (e.g. "Official") on a book that wasn't.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    Any book that has an almighty being sending bears to kill children because they made fun of an old man should be a best-seller for all eternity in my book.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:46pm

    Re: Re: Who should benefit then?

    Just because a novel has sold a lot or been around for a long time doesn't mean suddenly it should public domain.

    That's how it works, or, used to work, back when people were less lazy.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:32am

    Re: Who should benefit then?

    why should someone else be able to make money off someone else's work because of a copyright running out

    I think someone else is already making money off of someone else's work, my friend. Unless you think one of his grandchildren time-traveled back to write the book.

  • On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 11:29am

    Re: genus and creativity need to have unique rewards

    Surely the unique value there should go to the creator or his heirs, or do you suggest that they get nothing and that the book's price simply be reduced?

    I feel that those that do nothing, deserve nothing. Furthermore, how is this copyright promoting Fitzgerald to write new works? He's dead, after all. How did it promote the creativity of his children? How is it promoting creativity in his *grandchildren*? It's not. It's being used as welfare. Now they do not have to work or create anything, they will have a $500,000/year check coming to them.

    Without that check,his grandchildren would have no option to leach off their grandfather's creativity, and have to make it on their own merits. If they had the same level of creativity, they might feel compelled to try their hand and writing, and perhaps write another novel to be read in highschools. Extended copyrights seems to be hindering creativity in this case, rather than promoting it.

    To answer your question: Yes.

  • On the post: As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 09:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I killed lots of people playing Borderlands last night on my XBox. Is virtual murder still murder?

    Nice try though.

  • On the post: UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 12:43pm

    Re:

    talk about VPNs, P2P apps that only share with "friends", etc.

    What the Big Media doesn't get is that if people are willing to *pay* monthly to access a VPN service, they'd equally be willing to *pay* for an all-you-can-eat download subscription priced near those VPN services.

    Better a few bucks a month for no extra work than zero bucks a month for zero extra work.

    Sheesh.

  • On the post: UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 09:53am

    Uh..?

    ..and I the only one concerned that they never actually say it's harder to monitor *criminals*, just monitor in general?

  • On the post: No, Twitter Use Is Not Costing Companies Billions

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 09:42am

    Re: every second

    I liked the misspelled words. Maybe a spell checker isn't such a bad idea? :P

  • On the post: No, Twitter Use Is Not Costing Companies Billions

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 09:40am

    Re: Re: Lost in Empire

    That is a very long sentence.

  • On the post: No, Twitter Use Is Not Costing Companies Billions

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 09:37am

    Re: Conspicously absent this year...

    Does anyone really believe this stuff anymore?

    Politicians do.

  • On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 09:36am

    Re: Re: Interesting viewpoints

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe there is more than one AC?

    Yes. Did it occur to you that we don't see your IP address (luckily for you) and so we can't tell the difference between one troll AC and another troll AC? So, if you *really* want to "engage readers", take the extra 4.7 seconds and type in an identifier. Otherwise, you're just a trolling anonymous coward.

  • On the post: On The Media Takes On The Music Industry

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2009 @ 09:36am

    "Last December, we officially announced that we would end the litigation program against end users."

    No, Mike, he's right, they made an announcement in December that they would end their litigation program against end users. They just didn't announce *when* they would end it.

    Crafty devils. :P

  • On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2009 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re:

    If the feel, atmosphere and experience of your concert can be exactly replicated via an online video, you're doing it wrong.

    Those, if someone invents a way to recreate the exact sensory experience without being there, I admit musicians are going to be in a tough spot. :P

  • On the post: The Debate Is Not Free vs. Paid

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2009 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Okay, so you being the smart dude that you are, would you care to explain how a writer would make a living if his books, articles, and all his work product were available for free?

    1: How many ebooks do you own? Something tells me that many, many people are still, and probably always will, prefer a real dead-tree book to an e-book. No one has every said that dead-tree books should be free-- they cost money to reproduce, after all. Now, an e-book, on the other hand, cost nothing to reproduce, yet is often sold at eerily close to the cost of a dead-tree book. (Hardcover price, no less!) How does that make sense?

    2: How much does it cost for a writer to write his first book? He clearly hasn't gotten paid for that first book, as it hasn't been published yet. How are books *ever* written, if they cost so damn much to make? The way you talk, the writer needs a lot of money to write, else he couldn't, but clearly he could at least once, right? Explain.

    3: Autographed books. Despite what you think, some fans don't want them for ebay value or because they are rare, they want them (and will pay for them) because it is one way to **Connect** to the artist. (Re: The 'C' in CwF + RtB) Especially if the signing is done in person.

    4: Try selling ice sculptures without a day job. Not all forms of art are self sustaining, and it may be (though I doubt it) that fiction writing may end up there. Shit happens. Real artists will do it anyway.

    I hope this clears up your confusion, my friend.

  • On the post: More Musicians Realizing File Sharing Isn't Evil; Shakira, Norah Jones, Nelly Furtado Say It's Ok

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2009 @ 10:18am

    Re:

    I have your counter-argument right here, pal:

    But wait, I thought artists could make MORE money by NOT selling copies? Why is this musician implying the opposite?

    Reading isn't your strong point, is it? If you take some time and really sound out the words, you'll understand that "could" doesn't mean "absolutely, 100% will". I know, I know, you think the masses should just hand over money for any old crap that's tossed at them, but that's not how the real world, or the free market, works.

    Furthermore, I *do* think that if file-sharing were accepted, there would be less Mega-super-ultra stars, but also way less still-needs-to-work-two-jobs musicians. More on that after I quote your next retarded comment.

    This is what copyright helps to enable and what freemunists seek to destroy.

    Strict Copyright doesn't help an artist-- *any* artist-- gain millions of fans. Talent does that. So why do we have Brittany Spears? Because the Labels have set up such an environment where you *needed* a label to reach that number of people. In fact, they used this environment to strong-arm artists into blatantly unfair contracts to rob them of their rights to *their own work*. THAT sounds like piracy to me. Back on topic, because of this environment, you were only exposed to the artists that the label wanted you exposed to-- the ones that were lowest risk, that sounded much like everyone else. In essence, a cookie-cutter cutout of the artists before. That is not art.

    Now that there is an easy, cheap, and quick way to spread your music/book/movie to literally the entire planet at once, these bloated incumbent middlemen are no longer required, so they villanize the method to make them obsolete, using the money from the unfair contracts they've forced artists into for decades. Now we can be exposed to a nearly unlimited number of new artists and judge for ourselves if they deserve to be compensated for their art, or if they are just a screaming monkey with a microphone playing power chords mindlessly.

    It doesn't matter if an artists has already made it big, or is just starting out-- the only people who are afraid of file-sharing are those without talent.

    Finally, a teacher does not reap any rewards if one of his students goes on to invent something innovative. A doctor does not reap rewards from everything accomplished by someone whose life she saves. A police officer that foils a burglary does not get a cut if the homeowner uses that not-stolen money in the stock market to make millions of dollars. Why, then, does a director deserve to keep getting paid for every viewing of his movie? Why does a pop singer deserve to get paid every time someone stumbles upon their music on Pandora? Why does an author keep getting paid every time Amazon Ctrl-V's an ebook and sends it to someone? IP Maximalists are not living in the real world if they honestly believe they are entitled to more money for doing absolutely, 100% no extra work. They had a good run, but it's a new age.

    Technology giveth and Technology taketh away.

    Do you copy?

  • On the post: Hollywood Can't Handle Anyone Connecting With Fans… So It Contractually Tries To Stop Them

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2009 @ 01:18pm

    Re:

    some disgruntled nincompoop tweeting plot spoilers to your favorite entertainments

    Right, because knowing the plot line is going to stop someone from wanting to see the movie.

    I'm looking at you, Titanic.

  • On the post: Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2009 @ 11:48am

    Re: how do i get started?

    I don't get it. Why add an artificial limit? Why force an e-book to stop working at all?

  • On the post: Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2009 @ 10:29am

    Re: Creators of works have rights

    authors have a right to a reasonable profit from their work

    You clearly have no idea what "right" means, nor how the free market works.

    No one has a right to a reasonable profit. If you spend 10 million dollars making an awesome pet rock 2.0, you do not deserve to make a profit. You are able to try to make a profit, but you might fail. That's the chance everyone makes while creating something new.

    Deal with it.

    If you try to distribute an ebook for to me and charge 90% of the hardcover price, I will say thanks but no thanks. If I find someone willing to distribute that same e-book to me for free, I'm more likely to take them up on that offer. That's how it works.

Next >>