"If you don't like the licensing laws, simply don't listen to the music that is affected by them. It's very easy to opt-out!"
What about the stories of collection societies coming after businesses that play only UNLICENSED music and INDEPENDENT artists? Is it right in you mind that these parasite collection societies demand payment on music that they have NO control over just because there is a chance that some piece of music that they control [i]might[/i] be played?
These asshats make it so that there is no chance to opt-out.
**I think you are confusing your Economics and your Art or Feelings.
Scarcity has to do with Limited Resources, and only limited resources.
Scarcity can only be determined in so much as the medium a product is introduced into the market with. So, if a *unique* story is digitally available it is an infinite good, because the ability exists to create an infinite number of copies of said story. If the *unique* story is introduced into the market printed on paper, it is a Scarce Good, as there are a finite number of pieces of paper available to print the story on.
Scarce goods have nothing to do with Uniqueness, or Quality, or Color, or Content. Scarcity has everything to do with the ability to reproduce the good. These qualifiers can add or detract from the Value of a product but they do not determine if there are limited resources to reproduce the product.
His point is that the coffee shops are choosing to live with out the music but the problem is with the Musicians. With all the venues that are stopping playing music the independent Musicians are losing money / opportunities to practice their craft. These performance rights groups are taking away these opportunities for new, up and coming artists, even if these new artists are playing their own music.
Where can a new artist play the music that they wrote if no place offers an Open Mic because these Performance Rights groups are charging too much money for the right to play music even if that music is not a part of said Performance Rights group?
Or the internet will stay the same because, like in Real Life(tm), some people choose to do illegal things. Some people choose to sneak into a theater to watch a movie with out paying for it, some people choose to watch that same movie online without paying for it.
Does this mean that /all/ people do these things? No.
Is this behavior exclusive to the internet? No.
Why would we change the internet to a broadcast medium? It was /built/ on user created content? Because /some/ people watch movies and don't pay for them? Just like some people sneak into a movie theater to see that same film without paying for it.
We are living in a time of change, established ways of doing business are changing. Old business models that have been prevalent for the last century are changing because technology is making them obsolete.
The news paper said that it was a 'photo illustration' which means the image has been doctored in some way. So they weren't hiding the fact that they did something to it. So, this isn't news.
Can you please provide a definition of "Photo Illustration" for me please? I do not associate Photo Illustration with reporting factual events. From what I can gather Photo Illustration means making Art out of photos, and I haven't found a definition where it relates to Removing Images from a photo reporting on Factual events.
If the news paper had of used an image that didn't have those 3 politicians in it, would we care? Would it have been posted on this site as some sort of moral outrage? Would it have called into question the level of news being reported by said paper? No, on all counts.
Yes, you are correct. By the newspaper creating a fake photograph and using a vague caption with no official or colloquial definition anywhere near news reporting they brought this controversy on to themselves.
What? How? With the proposed system all Rights Holders have to do is show [i]real[/i] infringement and the content is gone. Unlike here in the US where no legal proof is necessary, and only a letter is needed to stifle potential free speech, putting the burden (both in costs and time) to fight false DMCA notices on innocent citizens making [i]legal[/i] content.
In both systems if the content is illegal then it will be taken down.
Question to you: If a rights holder doesn't like (but the content is legal) a work, why is the burden on the new creator? Shouldn't the rights holder have to prove that a work is infringing before it is removed?
"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.