"La Russa & The AP Claims Twitter Settled Lawsuit... Twitter Sets The Record Straight"
Well, to be fair to Tony, he'd had fourteen martinis and drove a car into a tree on the property of Mark McGuirre, who went into 'roids rage and slapped him with his man-mammaries....so cut him some slack.
"If you make A free to sell B, some idiot will make B free to sell C. Then another fool will make C free to sell D."
To me, that only works if a=b=c=d, and in this case, they don't. A is free because I can already get it for free from my friends. How can my friends give me b(concert seats) or c(tshirts), and how can businesses get d(appearences) for free from someone else?
"Band gives away music to sell concert tickets, so bands that can't get exposure like that start giving away concerts too, hoping to sell t-shirts. Another band figures the t-shirts are good marketing too, so they give away CDs, concerts and t-shirts hoping to sell beer at their shows."
For the reasons I stated above, we already know that the bands you are speaking of are terminally stupid. However, in the free on the net scenario, what is causing the "can't get exposure"? They've got all the free distribution in the world, so unless the A. don't have someone managing the business side smart enough to use the web, and/or B. they just aren't very good to most people consuming, there shouldn't BE a problem.
"Does it ever end?"
Yes, in most cases at the level of recorded music. Bye bye labels! We get to do your job now! And WE do it for free!
"It's one of the reasons there is a difference between someone with an MBA and someone who does marketing."
What if they have an MBA IN marketing, do they get to have an opinion then?
"Sales people know that "free" is the easiest sale in the world, because the client has almost no reason to say no, after all, it's free."
There's plenty of reason to say no, if what you're giving to me isn't useful. I wouldn't take a kick to the crotch, for instance, nor do I want free coupons sent to my mail, even though some others like them. I personally don't in any way want free hip hop music. I don't like it.
"For more information, please see current American car company offers. Each one piles a little more "free" on the top to try to sell the car, soon enough the costs of the free will far exceed the value of the car."
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH...if you think the issue with the car industry was that they were giving away too much free stuff, you need you're head examined. They were producing a product NO ONE wanted coupled with overexpansion and unfettered growth. Simply put, they produced too much compared to their customer base. Most cases what they produced was no longer in demand, some cases they produced too many of what was in SOME demand.
"I don't think ASCAP is out of line for arguing there's a public performance occurring when a song is used in a video game. How can we really distinguish playing a song via a stream and playing a song via video game. Both take place within your private home, to the exclusion of the public."
....Holy shit, are you kidding me? Did you in two sentences actually say "I don't think ASCAP is out of line for arguing there's a public performance occurring when a song is used in a video game" AND "take place...to the exclusion of the public"? I'm hoping I'm missing a sarcasm tag here, otherwise you need to be a politician. Only they can contradict themselves like that.
"The real problem is how the definition of "public performance" is construed."
No, the real problem is that people can't have an ounce of fucking common sense and need to have obvious concepts defined for them at all. Public performance means that the purpose of use it directly PERFORM (in whatever the art's capacity, be it music, video game, etc.) to the general public. End of story.
"According to the ASCAP website, "A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.""
That's what makes them idiots. Or at least it's what proves they think WE'RE idiots. I don't know how you define substantial, but I would think that by these tools' definition, the clubhouse of a private country club would be considered a public venue, so you can see how well THAT definition stands up.
"A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public""
But that's not what's happening. They're tranmitting it to their CUSTOMERS private residences/equipment(in the case of mobile devices). There's nothing public about it. By that definition, trucking companies need to pay a license when they transport music. If you think that's reasonable...hold on...I'm getting really pissed here...
"As I said above, categorizing a stream as a "public performance" sets a dangerous precedent."
I think you'd be better of just saying that categorizing a stream is...wrong.
"Why pay to see a concert when the artist is already giving away his music?"
....okay, so your argument is that if we get the music for free download, we wouldn't go to the concert. Why? If we PAY for the download, do we go to the concert THEN? If not, and you're a proponent of live music (it sounds that way), it seems to me your enemy isn't free recorded music, it's just recorded music.
"There is no spin. Canadian privacy laws are not at all like American laws, we don't deal in bizarre absolutes based on court rulings on a poorly written document called the US constitution."
Right. I don't know Canadian law, so I can't speak on its merit, but I've never actually heard anyone refer to the US Constitution as a poorly writtern document. It's malleability and the ease with which it remains relevant as we move forward has been revered by even detractors of our country. In other words, you're an absolute retard.
"It is also true that few Canadians have much sympathy for child molesters trying to hide behind privacy blinds. We aren't quite so comfortable with people getting off on technicalities."
First, it sounds like you think we have sympathy for child molestors, which would be more idiocy. And BTW, we aren't comfortably with people getting off on technicalities either, we simply would rather let a few guilty go free rather than fall under the thumb of a rampant government that's out of control. If you know anything about the formation of America you already know where that distrust of government comes from.
"Republicans are responsible for over regulation that helps rich and powerful corporations..while Democrats are responsible for being asleep at the switch and letting the Banks give loans to people with no money to back it up"
Uh....what? I don't want to get into a Republican v. Democrat debate here (because I dislike them both and find them to be essentially the same team in a different uniform), but I'm curious as to what Democrats had to do with banks handing out loans to people who didn't qualify for them (incidentally, if you think that was the chief reason for the massive economy drop, I would strongly disagree).
Didn't the housing bubble, i.e. mortgage crisis occur somewhere in the area of 1999-2004? I seem to remember an awful lot of Republicans in control during that time (thought I don't really blame THEM either, all of this started a long, long, long time ago, probably before Reagan). That is to say on the Federal level, at least.
So the woman wasn't happy that her gloves got red popsicle on them, so she's going to give it back to the sellers at a loss? In other words, they got free money? I don't see anything indicating that the Skype brand name took a hit. What an epic sale!
Wow. That is an absolutely outstanding idea. I wonder if you could get Google involved to work out any difficulties. Lord knows they have a vested interest in anythign that gets more people web access.
There was something similar (I think I saw it on TechDirt) having to do with real and fake iMax theatres. It was VERY cool.
Are the guys that sold Skype to Ebay invested in the integration as well, or was it a sell and run situation? I can see the old Skype boys sipping martinis poolside at the Luxor, talking about the time they sold a ketchup popsicle to a woman in white gloves.
Disclaimer: I support neither party and think they are both crooks. Also, I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
"You mean, that you are liberal and so you feel that the conservative viewpoints that Fox leans towards are thus not for people of your status? Don't assume that most visitors to this blog are liberal, or that your political paradigm is necessarily the most beneficial to your economic class."
You'd have to be completely retarded not to see the blatant falsehoods and pandering to their customer base on Fox News. It's for people that WANT a conservative slant to their news, period. That means you aren't just getting info and news, you're getting it through a tint. If you're cool w/that, then fine. Most of the other news stations out there (w/the exception of ABC), present the news w/a liberal slant. The only difference is they don't outright tell you and they don't make it so ridiculously obvious that you have to figure it out for yourself. The point is there are NO true factual news stations.
"Fox is baised and certainly more sensational than many of its fellow news outlets, but not necessarily of inferior academic content. I don't enjoy watching Fox News for my info, but I can tell that NPR is extremely biased, quixotic, and has little of redeeming value."
To compare the two is kind of a joke. Certainly NPR is a biased as well, and both are part info, part entertainment. The difference is that NPR is History Channel infotainment, and FNC is WWE Wrestling. Sorry, but it's true. Plus, that Shephard Smith fuckhole makes me want to puke. And Greta's face looks as though she's constantly shitting. Which I would be too if I found myself working for Rupert Murdoch.
"Fox News is far from an ideal news source, but many liberal sources are just as poor or worse; yet, outspoken voices on the internet often seem to ignore or be oblivious to the latter."
I think we probably agree in principle, but the difference in distance from center between most "liberal" news and Fox is HUGE. Pretending it isn't...I don't know, that just lacks credibility to me.