I'm in a networks class having to write a paper about the problems with the wireless service. Part of that is the exploration of the AT&T data plan change. Turns out it's a fairly necessary change AT&T had to make to improve the quality of service for its customers (or I suppose make the network easier to maintain). Plus if you believe the numbers that AT&T spewed in its press release that 98% of its users fell under the 2Gb cap, then the change is really not that big of a deal. Power users will move over to the other providers and hinder network performance there.
Perhaps as 4G rolls out it will alleviate some of the congestion and caps won't have to be made. I'm counting on femtocells to be a popular choice because they'll dump wireless data straight to wire and back.
Also, adding more towers is not a simple process. It's one that creates NIMBYism.
I'm not so sure it's as simple as going back 300 years. The new bit in the mix is the free distribution, which has not occurred in any previous time period (that I'm aware of at least :/).
To MeMyself: I imagine most artists will stay profitable, at least the ones that sell scarcities such as the sculptors, painters, or anyone who uses a physical medium. Photographers and graphic designers though, they will certainly have a tougher time trying the old way because they can't control the supply side of the equation given the nature of their work. For this, growing pains will exist and new ways will have to be figured out through a "survival of the fittest" approach. Someone will find a way to stay profitable, others will copy the idea, still others will find more ways, and some will fail. Happens all the time with businesses (which if you think about it, an artist IS a business). There will be no discrete instance where this issue will be addressed ("address the present"). It's an evolving situation that will sort itself out over a period of time. Given this reality the worst thing an artist can do now is stand still; they must move forward.
I'm sure this is a small detail in this whole situation, but it caught my eye:
ASCAP exists for one purpose -- fair payment to music creators for the use of their music by businesses and others who seek to attract viewers and customers.
What's considered "fair" payment? If I were in charge of ASCAP I'd be fighting to earn my constituents and myself the most money possible. That wouldn't be fair to "businesses and others" in my opinion. Am I assuming the right thing here, or is ASCAP /really/ trying to strike a fair deal?
I see what you're saying. However, the use of copyright isn't necessary for creators to make money (which I'm assuming is your main concern after reading your post). It's been shown in the music industry through the numerous artists pointed out here that a living can be made by/while letting people share your work widely. For authors, I see some more difficulty to the process because of greater obscurity (I don't read so I could be wrong), but the same can be done. An author would have to focus on selling scarcities like their time and use their works to add more value to them.
If copyright isn't about control, what is it about?
Again, assuming your concern is about having creators paid then I consider this question mostly irrelevant because it's use is unnecessary. If you want to argue about the black and white meaning of the text then I concede because copyright does establish the rights (controls) for creators. (Originally I guessed you were asking about its intended purpose.)
It's often said around here that the existence of copyright is "to promote the progress." Basically, it was supposed to be an incentive for creators to continue making works. After that I get a little bit fuzzy on the logic of how it was supposed to work, but that was the ideal purpose of it all.
I laughed at this. AC obviously (or selectively) missed what you said about this exact situation:
From the above article: This is really frustrating because people accuse me of making this kind of statement all the time. It's not should, it's will. "Should" is a moral argument. "Will" is a predictive economic explanation.
People paying teachers is for the benefit of their knowledge and experience being passed down, not for permission to copy the teacher's style.
Just a minor note: the teacher's experience is the scarcity, along with the time spent with the individual. The knowledge is not so scarce unless you were referring to the teacher's experience redundantly.
the only difference you are seeing at this point is that they can now also distribute their music (mostly freely) on the internet
It's not the only difference. The size of the audience these bands are catering to is much larger. Before the Internet a local band in Maine would surely not have fans in California. Today that is not so far-fetched. With a larger audience to make a fan base out of, a band can make more money (or enough to survive on).
that would be no different from the thousands of acts every year that would record two songs, and put out a 45 single in the past, trying to get airtime
Now-a-days bands can throw their stuff on the Internet and promote their work without the aid of a gatekeeper like the radio was. Bands have more control of their success.
it is misleading to point to this small part of the music industry (often large in numbers of people, but usually small in actual income) and say "look what is happening to the music industry" because it has always been there.
The layer has always been there, but it's the growth of this layer that is noteworthy and why it's not misleading to mention it as a trend that's impacting the music industry. More bands are able to make money outside of the traditional routes. That's a significant change to an industry that relied on a golden ticket model. An analogy for this idea: there used to be only one road to Rome, but now there are several more being built and in use.
Just because the sales dropped for Red Zone doesn't mean it did poorly compared to its competition. Did the overall market hit a low spot? The source didn't say.
Also the source Mike refers to says the drop occurred over a 52 week period ending Jun 13 and did not include Wal-Mart sales (for whatever reason I'm not sure why). The commercial's only been out since February. What if prior to February the sales had dropped 10% and has since then gained 3%? (With the potential for a delay of consumer activity.)
And as Kate Dickman noted in the comment below, this event is just now climaxing. So let's see what impact the commercial has on sales during the next few months.
Most carrier subbed phones in the US are locked and can only be used on that carrier. How is the iPhone any different?
I agree with you that this is a double standard. However, I think the high profile of the iPhone is a good place to start with demolishing this restriction. It's a huge privilege that the carriers have this restriction to begin with. I can't think of another industry that guarantees its income and significantly reduces the ability for the consumer to vote with their wallet (is this common elsewhere?). Either way, removing this restriction should increase each carrier's desire to compete because more money is at stake.
There's a HUGE difference between a physical item and a digital copy as follows: When the dealer gives you a Porche the dealer no longer has ownership of it. That specific Porche can only be in one place at a time. With a digital copy the original owner still retains the data even after someone takes a copy.
What most people complain about is lost sales, which some assume occurs every time someone makes a copy of a digital work. This is a blatantly false assumption! I could, right now, go download Linkin Park's Meteora illegally, but it's not a lost sale because I /hate/ Linkin Park. They had no sale to gain from me to begin with.
So back to your concern of lack of logic, you made a false assumption that the exchange of real life goods is exactly the same as the exchange of digital goods. This is why you are confused.
You better believe the hype. It's real. And it's happening right now. There are men out there dying every day. Millions if not billions all laying about on their respective fronts. From Heavies to Special Forces to modern soldiers. All this death while the enemy taunts with jeers of "BOOM! Headshot!" and "LOL YOU GOT PWNED!" That's the most disgusting part of it all...
We NEED the military to intervene! To save the lives of these brave men (or boys, and sometimes girls)! Let the defense contracts rain from the skies like hail of (virtual) bullets that will rain on our enemy!
//meh, military isn't needed and neither is cutting corners by existing designers