"The 'get all your music you want for free, and then maybe with a few bells and whistles we can move you to a premium price' strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future."
WTF does he think Radio is? I don't pay for squat for the music I listen to over the radio and yet i can listen to it ALL day long.
Is WMG going to pull all their content from radio as well?
Unfortunately I don't think it will be that easy. If the entertainment industry is taking this much effort in creating this "Treaty" they will not allow everybody to make these accusations. I expect that only a "Select" (read MPAA/RIAA) group to be able to make these accusations. If they allowed everybody the chance to make accusations then the entire "Treaty" would be worthless as, like you said, everybody would eventually be kicked off the net.
So what then about the Mural argument? That is the same analogy as hotlinking.
I built (coded) a window (hotlink) for people to see the mural (img) from my home (site). Would this then infringe on the copyright of the artist as you argue that it infringes on the owner of the img? The mural artist could (at any time) paint a different mural, just like the owner of the image being hotlinked.
I actually used to find your comments enlightening because they provided an opposite view of my own but....wow...you have gone off the deep end:
Sorry, I have to correct you on something (I make the mistake in wording at times as well). Society as a whole does not mean that everyone gets an individual vote on every item, nor do they get some sort of magical veto power.
Do you understand that we live in a Democracy? Yes, the US is not a true Democracy in that each citizen has a vote on every item, but we elect people who are supposed to serve the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. These elected officials are supposed to vote based on the will of their constituents. We vote people into office to vote for us, because we all cannot be there.
Are you really saying that the Government, who we elect to serve us, should ignore the will of the people and create laws in secrete? Really?
Seriously, the information I get from some social networking contacts can be better than the so-called "journalists" being paid to write.
Hell, I get my favorite Journalists on twitter. For a rabid sports fan, twitter is a god-send. I follow my favorite beat writers and journalists to get updates about transactions, and notices when their stories / blogs are posted.
Except if you read even the summary, you would realize that THEIR TESTIMONY IS ALREADY BEING RECORDED!
"Do they not realize that, without a single camera, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting live accounts that include the names of those taking the stand? That special interest groups will be Twittering their testimony as they speak? That there are already websites identifying Prop 8 supporters and where they live?"
The camera's would not change anything, all it would do would be to add another distribution channel.
Except it is not all about getting stuff for free. When the 1st gen iPhone and the iPhone 3g were released there was NO app in Apples app store that could shoot video, yet you could pirate one. This is what Mike talks about when he says that it is a failure of a company to provide what the market wants.
How about the countless hours that Teachers spend AT HOME creating these lesson plans? Should the Government have control of these lesson plans?
Where in the article did you read that these were created on the clock? What I read is that they want to claim Copyright on ALL output, "created by a teacher with direct or indirect support from the school." Which might control even the lesson plans created at home, if it is based on the school curriculum...
This is a good idea, but cruising their website I do not see one instance where they claim Trademark on the "Smiley Cookie." If they do have a trademark on the "Smiley Cookie" shouldn't they have to show that on their site?
This would be an interesting argument to bring up in court: Ask the RIAA to show what the defendant actually uploaded. Not the generalized whole song, but the actual bits. I wonder if trying to open/play that broken file would sway a jury...
"Why shouldn't he? He's using something that you as the artist or I as the engineer created really just for the purpose of marketing himself."
What about that Painting behind the bar? Should the bar owner pay the artist each day that a customer walks up to the bar and looks at the Painting? That is art, sold by an artist, but somehow musicians are special because their artwork only last 3 minutes and then has to be replayed?
How about those custom bar stools? Do we need to pay that artist a fee everytime somebody sits their drunk ass down on them?
What about that Sculpture in the corner?
Those photo's of bar patrons hanging on the wall to the bathroom?
"A potential customer has heard a great song which they've shown enough interest in to at least investigate further, and both the customer and the industry has been failed at the first hurdle. We should be recompensed for that loss of a sale."
I call bullsh*t on this. It is not a lost sale if the customer who hears that song would never have bought it in the first place, nor chose to play it on the jukebox! It's not a lost sale if that customer put money into the jukebox to play the song in the first place.
It is a false assumption to think that everybody who likes a particular song would purchase it if it wasn't available on a jukebox at their local pub.
Personally there are some songs that I like to listen to but I would never purchase them, nor would I miss them if I never heard them again. This situation is not a lost sale, ie: if I keep hearing the song or if it disappeared off the face of the earth I would never have bought it.