misterdoug 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (98) comment rss

  • On the post: EU Getting Ready To Vote On Unnecessary Copyright Extension

    misterdoug ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2011 @ 08:28am

    Been there, done that

    We can already point out that rightsholders have stolen from the public. The latest copyright extension in the U.S. was the Bono Act of 1998. One of its many provisions extended copyrights until 2067 on all audio recordings made before 1972. This included the entire "golden age" of radio and extends all the way back to wax cylinder recordings made by Edison. Thousands of works that had been in the public domain for decades were suddenly re-copyrighted. The same thing could happen to copyrights on written materials, to patents, to anything else that continues to make money for someone who can afford to bribe a senator to cut and paste their email into a piece of legislation. That's the U.S. version of "representative government" these days.

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

    misterdoug ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2011 @ 01:34pm

    Selling copies is not the point

    Killer Tofu's comment misses the point:
    Any band that gets pirated should at least be happy that people care enough to do that, even if not enough to pay.

    Yes they should be happy, but not as a consolation prize. Bands with recording contracts don't make money from people buy records, they make money from people buying concert tickets. Because of the way recording contracts are written very few musicians ever get any actual royalty money paid to them at any time in their entire careers. Records merely give bands exposure, which helps their performance careers.

    This is a fact that the recording industry has done a great PR job of hiding. The public generally thinks musicians who sell a ton of records rake in a ton of royalties. The reality is that selling records makes you famous which lets you play bigger venues and charge higher ticket prices.

    What benefits the musician isn't buying of the record, it's listening to what's on it, whether it's listening to a CD, an mp3, a friend's stereo, or a radio station, because a percentage of that exposure leads to the sale of a concert ticket.

  • On the post: Samsung Hires 'Actors' To Pretend To Be Happy Galaxy Tab Testers?

    misterdoug ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2011 @ 05:47pm

    Followup

    After a diligent search I can state with complete certainty that there is no evidence online to corroborate Anonymous Douchebag's claim that these people really have the jobs they mentioned.

    Are there any forums like this that don't allow anonymous comments?

  • On the post: The Cognitive Science Explanation For Why Copyright Doesn't Make Much Sense

    misterdoug ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2011 @ 01:33am

    General Question

    Is there an "ignore Anonymous Coward" filter on this forum?
    It would be a great idea.

  • On the post: The Cognitive Science Explanation For Why Copyright Doesn't Make Much Sense

    misterdoug ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2011 @ 01:32am

    Our culture is built on freely copying each other

    From musicians and storytellers wandering from town to town, memorizing and repeating each other's material with no contracts and no royalties, to Walt Disney building his empire on the money he made using public domain fairy tales and classical music in his early animations.

    It doesn't take a genius to recognize that humans developed a rich culture without copyrights. It also doesn't take a genius to see that the protection of artists and creativity is a smoke screen for the real thrust behind modern IP mania, which is to preserve the market that has developed for buying and selling control of other people's creativity. It doesn't take a genius, but it does require taking one's head out of one's ass.

  • On the post: Publicity Rights After Death Are Severely Limiting Culture

    misterdoug ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2011 @ 01:02am

    Re: endorsement rights

    Yes, we need an even bigger litigation industry tilling the fertile soil of ambiguity, siphoning off a percentage of people's estates to determine whether they are public-figurey enough that their stories can be freely told.

    OR

    We could just accept freedom of speech even though it means sometimes people say things we don't like, and make lawyers go do something productive.

  • On the post: Publicity Rights After Death Are Severely Limiting Culture

    misterdoug ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2011 @ 12:46am

    Re: Needs a boundary to be contained.

    Obviously a portion of this should benefit their DIRECT family...

    Really? Why, exactly? Family members can inherit any property passed to them by the deceased, and as relatives of a famous figure they have a leg up on generating their own profits out of it. Why on Earth should they benefit from other people's works on the subject? Think about what you're saying for a minute. A guy struggles up from poverty, becomes a famous geneticist, invents a cure for cancer and then dies. An author wants to write a book about this exemplary person's life, but his relatives insist on 50% of the profits or the book can't be published. What gives them the right to deprive the world of this author's work, just because they happen to be related to the subject?

  • On the post: Publicity Rights After Death Are Severely Limiting Culture

    misterdoug ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2011 @ 12:37am

    At least be consistent

    It's funny that the loudest opponents of "entitlements" such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, welfare, etc. tend to be the loudest defenders of entitling people to benefit from their relatives' achievements, to which they contributed nothing.

  • On the post: Publicity Rights After Death Are Severely Limiting Culture

    misterdoug ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2011 @ 12:31am

    Double-edged sword

    Come on, libertarians out there. Are you for the freedom of the living, or are you for the government inventing new restrictions on behalf of the dead?

  • On the post: Samsung Hires 'Actors' To Pretend To Be Happy Galaxy Tab Testers?

    misterdoug ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2011 @ 12:29am

    Re: part time actors?

    Source please?
    If this is true it sheds a new light on the thing. But if you want to be taken seriously with your anonymous post at least cite your source.

  • On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music

    misterdoug ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2011 @ 10:28pm

    Re: Music and Records aren't the same thing

    chris and vivaelamor -
    Musicians do benefit from record companies promoting their music, but the price is very high. A standard record deal is for 7 CDs, with the record company having full control over which songs are worthy of putting on the CDs. Most bands only make one CD, it doesn't sell that well, and the company never approves another one. However, until their 7-CD contract expires the band can't go to a different record company or release a CD under their own label. They can never record again under the same name unless they buy out their contract (rare) or the company releases them (also rare). So typically the band either breaks up or changes its name. They cannot refer to themselves as "formerly band x" because that would violate their contract. These same rules apply to an individual musician recording under his or her own name. Essentially the record company owns the rights to the name until the contract is completed.
    Of course nobody puts a gun to anyone's head to sign the contract, but the industry has done a very good job of promoting record deals as the holy grail, and until recently there has been no viable alternative for getting your music heard widely. Now that we have the Internet, there is. Right now there is very little chance that free distribution will generate the following of a rock superstar, but there's actually very little chance that it will happen with a record deal too. The big difference is that a record deal is a crapshoot -- if that first CD sells well enough to get a second and third, then even if it ends there the band will have gotten enough airplay to generate a decent following that will support a modest touring career, and remember -- playing live gigs is how the band is going to make a living because they'll never see any royalty cash. However, the odds are much higher that the first album will fail commercially and the band will come to an end. The band or musician will have to break up or start over using a different names, thereby getting no benefit from the fame generated by the first record. Meanwhile all future recording rights to the songs they created during that time are under controlled by the record company forever. They can't even appear on TV and perform without permission from the company, because the TV show is being recorded. A record contract actually has a much higher chance of ending your career than of paying off a big jackpot.

    As for independent labels that write more reasonable contracts, sure they're around, but they lack the big money and distribution contacts to create the above benefits. Bandcamp and similar download-selling sites are one way to use the web to reach fans and make money, and I'm not saying anything against that model, but remember that the main function of records is to act as advertisements. Charging money to let people listen to your advertising when the product you're really selling is concert tickets doesn't make sense to me.

    The great thing is that musicians now have many choices about how they control their destinies, if they're smart enough to take advantage of them.

  • On the post: What Have We Learned: Greater IP Enforcement Doesn't Work… Yet That's What Governments Want To Give

    misterdoug ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2011 @ 01:18pm

    How soon we forget

    Hardly anybody remembers back in 2003 when the University of Pennsylvania traced the top 50 movie downloads to their original postings, and found that 77% of them were leaked by movie company insiders.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4166-insiders-blamed-for-most-online-movie-piracy.html

    And those were all high-quality copies. The remaining 23% is where you'll find all the crappy-ass copies made in theaters with handheld cameras.

  • On the post: ICANN Says US Gov't Should Let It Go Private, While US Wants More Control

    misterdoug ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2011 @ 01:00pm

    Let me guess...

    The U.S. government has to control ICANN, because otherwise TLDs could be used by terrorists and Satan to promote socialism, gay marriage and copyright infringement.

  • On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music

    misterdoug ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    Music and Records aren't the same thing

    The way to support your favorite musicians is by going to their concerts, not by buying records. Hardly any musicians ever make money from record sales, even highly successful ones. In a standard recording contract all the expenses of producing, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, etc. are deducted from royalties before any money is paid, almost always leaving nothing. There are a few Madonnas who can negotiate better contracts, but what the vast majority of musicians get out of records is popularity, which leads to bigger gigs and higher ticket prices, i.e. more income. What affects them is people hearing and liking their songs, whether on a paid-for CD, a downloaded file, the radio, or whatever. It truly doesn't matter.

    If you love record companies, buy records. If you love musicians, go to concerts.

  • On the post: Samsung Hires 'Actors' To Pretend To Be Happy Galaxy Tab Testers?

    misterdoug ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2011 @ 11:07am

    Re: Actors are real people, too

    LOL - I've been an actor myself. Some are amazingly unreal.

  • On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music

    misterdoug ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2011 @ 08:13am

    Another good point!

    Yes, that is exactly what the researcher did. I'm glad you agree that the researcher used sound methods to determine that the quality of music has not gone down. That's why it makes no sense for the record industry to claim that piracy has driven down the quality of music, when the quality of music has in fact not gone down. That's like saying evil spirits are making it rain when isn't even raining.

  • On the post: Samsung Hires 'Actors' To Pretend To Be Happy Galaxy Tab Testers?

    misterdoug ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2011 @ 10:59pm

    Fraud is fraud

    Some ads present actors portraying what might happen when you use a product. That's just an illustration. Others present real people giving testimonials about what really did happen when they personally did use the product. That's a claim of fact. There's a distinct difference between the two. Falsely claiming that an actor is a real estate CEO or a freelance writer is outright fraud. Samsung should be prosecuted and fined for this.

  • On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music

    misterdoug ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2011 @ 10:25pm

    Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About

    Hi flashlv! How are things on bannination.com?

  • On the post: Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period

    misterdoug ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2011 @ 06:06pm

    Interesting point of view but...

    Mike, I think I understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing two things:

    1) When you sell something with marginal cost $20,000 for price $20,000 and make no profit, you had to spend $20,000 to do it, with no guarantee that you would ever sell it at all. This isn't equivalent to giving away something that cost $0 because obviously there's a difference between risking $20,000 and risking $0. Apples and cranberries aren't the same just because they're both red. I don't think it makes sense to call two things equivalent just because the marginal costs compared with the profits are the same.

    2) Most consumers would prefer to get something for free rather than paying for it. When business people say they can't compete with free, I'm pretty sure that's what they're talking about. From a consumer's perspective non-free vs free is the same as high cost vs low cost. They're not equivalent and one is distinctly preferred.

    Maybe I missed your point, because your analyses are generally right on and I don't think you would gloss over these things.

  • On the post: If You Think Writing For Free Undermines Your Profession, Just Don't Do It!

    misterdoug ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2011 @ 10:28am

    Traditional media sticks together

    The Guild's arguments are reminiscent of Microsoft and other software companies attacking the concept of free software as the end of life as we know it, the RIAA attacking freely distributed music as the end of life as we know it, business people attacking any sort of government regulation as the end of life as we know it, etc. I always smell fear when these things come up.

Next >>