Scott@DreamlandVisions 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (49) comment rss

  • On the post: Record Labels Planning Yet Another Way To Try To Get You To Rebuy Music You Already 'Bought'

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2011 @ 03:37pm

    Re: Lets do a very un-scientific survey here

    1) Yes. I value my music enough to purchase decent equipment to listen to it on.

    2) upgrade? maybe. Depends on the album or specific recording. New purchases? Absolutely.

  • On the post: Record Labels Planning Yet Another Way To Try To Get You To Rebuy Music You Already 'Bought'

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2011 @ 03:29pm

    Re: Re:

    It's also a 16bit format unless you have a higher bitrate original content to encode from.

    This isn't about lossless vs. lossy.. it's about greater dynamic range within the music data itself.

  • On the post: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2011 @ 01:00pm

    devices used...

    The concept of increasing the sentence or severity level of a crime based on the use or possession of a device during the commission of that crime has been around for generations.

    Having a firearm in your possession during the commission of a crime, even if their is zero violence, or even the threat of violence, will still net you additional time.

    The judge's statements makes it pretty plain that the defense attorney fell down on his job in making sure that the verdict and the sentence match the reality of what his client did.

  • On the post: If Financial Ratings Are Opinions, Would Reporting On Those Opinions Be Factual?

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2010 @ 08:16am

    Re: Exactly

    Yes. I really do not understand why this is difficult for people to understand.

    What I say might be copyrightable, but THAT I said it isn't.

  • On the post: If Financial Ratings Are Opinions, Would Reporting On Those Opinions Be Factual?

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2010 @ 08:14am

    Re: Re: Opinions vs. facts.

    Nice edit. Let's put the context back in, shall we?

    "The report by Bob is opinion and copyrightable. The fact that Bob wrote and published that report and what opinions Bob put in that report is not copyrightable."

    The fact that (bob did something) and the fact that bob (put something in a report) is not copyrightable. Only the nonfactual portions of the content *in* the report are copyrightable.

    Let's try it this way and see if it's more understandable.

    If all Bob did was print a spreadsheet of stock prices, financial statements and other facts, then no, it would not be copyrightable.

    However, if Bob takes all of those facts, his knowlege of the company and industry involved, does some calculations, throws some darts and rolls some bones to come up with his OPINION on what others should do related to those facts, then he would have a creative work and that work is copyrightable. The facts within the report (ie.. numbers, events, etc.) are not, but the final analysis and recommendations (opinions) are copyrightable.

  • On the post: If Financial Ratings Are Opinions, Would Reporting On Those Opinions Be Factual?

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2010 @ 07:18am

    Opinions vs. facts.

    Statement:

    "Hi, I'm Bob D Analyst and I say MegaCorp is a strong buy"

    The opinion and creative aspect is what Bob says and the report he created to support his opinion.

    Fact:

    "Ed T Morrow reporting here. BD Analyst released a report today stating that MegaCorp is a strong buy. Other's of the Analyst family are unavailable for comment but generally think Bob is full of himself."


    The report by Bob is opinion and copyrightable. The fact that Bob wrote and published that report and what opinions Bob put in that report is not copyrightable.

    WHAT Bob says is opinion. THAT he said it is a fact.

    Pretty straight forward to me.

    Scott

  • On the post: Appeals Court Destroys First Sale; You Don't Own Your Software Anymore

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2010 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Subject

    "I think AutoDesk has just sent a message to ALL potential customers, and now MANY of them will simply choose to download the free/cracked torrent instead."

    Very few people who use AutoCad for their livelihood, whether contractors or companies, will do so. When you get into projects that utilize software of this complexity, support and access to the developer community built around it are essential.

    When you're working on a six or seven figure project, you want to be able to pick up the phone or e-mail and get someone on there to help you with a problem. You are not just paying for a shiny plastic disk with some tiny pits and valleys in it.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Destroys First Sale; You Don't Own Your Software Anymore

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2010 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Subject

    "I think AutoDesk has just sent a message to ALL potential customers, and now MANY of them will simply choose to download the free/cracked torrent instead."

    Very few people who use AutoCad for their livelihood, whether contractors or companies, will do so. When you get into projects that utilize software of this complexity, support and access to the developer community built around it are essential.

    When you're working on a six or seven figure project, you want to be able to pick up the phone or e-mail and get someone on there to help you with a problem. You are not just paying for a shiny plastic disk with some tiny pits and valleys in it.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Destroys First Sale; You Don't Own Your Software Anymore

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Re: The reason why...

    I'd love to. When the FOSS software can compete in both features and depth of workflow with products like Lightwave, Photoshop, Premiere, AfterFX, Illustrator, Soundbooth, Lightroom and Media Converter, I'll look at moving my entire studio to Linux.

    I use all of those packages on a daily basis for even small videos like the one I edited for a recent SciFi/Fantasy convention.

    Wine doesn't cut it. Emulation doesn't cut it. I don't have time to use anything that forces me into 'work arounds' just to get basic functionality.

    I understand and agree with the FOSS movement and what's being done there. *anywhere* I can use FOSS software, I do. But until there are seriously comparable packages, I and many others are stuck in the land of EULAs.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Destroys First Sale; You Don't Own Your Software Anymore

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2010 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Opportunity?

    I"m having a little bit of trouble parsing what you're asking.

    The 10% is paid by the purchaser of the used software to transfer the license from the seller into their name.

    The 10% covers the cost of the license transfer service and is, in effect, pure profit for the software company after that.

    The software company does not need to produce new manuals, boxes, cd/dvds, dongles (does anyone still use dongles??), etc. It's merely book keeping.

    It's also a way to legitimize and monetize the first-sale doctrine into the EULA framework.

    If your competition restricts their customers, you do what you can to remove any restrictions from your customers. It adds value to your product, adds a small additional, recurring revenue stream.

    Everybody, but your competition, wins.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Destroys First Sale; You Don't Own Your Software Anymore

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2010 @ 09:55am

    Opportunity?

    This looks like a great opportunity for some up-n-coming software or game company.

    1) Write their EULAs to specifically *allow* transfer or sale.

    2) Set up a simple mechanism to transfer that license with a small fee (say 10% to 20% of the original retail cost)

    3) Profit.

    This allows for the freedom to transfer, sell or give away software or games that you purchase. With the prevalence of software that phones home to validate licenses, this is a very good way to allow the end user to buy used software or sell the software.

    There will always be ways around the license protection schemes, but this at least allows legitimate paying customers the ability to conduct their business in the way they see fit.

    Once you have that in place, *advertise* that you allow this. Make it a marketing point. Make sure the world knows that your competitor wants to control how you use their software, etc...

    Scott

  • On the post: Craigslist's Response To Adult Service Criticisms: Hey, eBay's Worse Than Us!

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2010 @ 02:35pm

    Responses people want?

    Why would Craig, et al.. be concerned with the emotional response people *want*? It's irrelavent.

    Craigslist no more nor less enables prostitution or any other less than legal activity when compared to news papers, blogs, facebook, one-model-place or any other social site.

    The discussion needs to be focused on those who are breaking the law. If Craig needs to take proactive steps, then so do the ISPs, the upstream bandwidth providers, etc. They all are "enabling" the posting of prostitution adverts on websites.

    Much like copyright laws, blue laws are running head long into the anonymizing, socializing and globalization of the participants that the internet allows.

  • On the post: Will The NAB Agree To A Performance Rights Tax In Exchange For Having RIAA Support Mandatory FM Radio In Mobile Phones?

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2010 @ 09:05am

    Explain? Takes to long.. I sum it up..

    RIAA: Hey, NAB, give us your moneys.
    NAB: We can't afford it!
    RIAA: Hey, Congress! Pass a law giving the NAB more moneys
    NAB: Great! Here's your moneys... Thanks, Congress! Here's some for you too!

  • On the post: OK Go Chats With Planet Money About The Music Business

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2010 @ 08:44am

    They have suceeded...

    .. in the only way they needed to for their business model.

    Making money, producing albums, shooting videos, distributing little plastic disks are not now and never have been the primary roadblock to success for a musician.

    Obscurity is. Once you break through the obscurity wall, everything else is simple.

    It's really the only valid "product" from a record label at this point.

    The success of groups like Ok Go, Amanda Palmer, etc prove that you no longer need the labels to do that for you. With a bit of savvy w/r/t public perceptions and the use of the new media technologies out there, any one can break the obscurity wall.

    Making money after that is where the real skill comes in. Anyone with a gimmick can get a million views on Youtube, but having something of substance behind the gimmick that you can monetize is where talent comes in.

    Palmer, Ok Go, Rezner, et al... all have that substance and talent in abundance. They also have the knowledge and skills to successfully monetize it.

    Labels are buggy-whip makers if they don't realize that they are not the channel or gatekeepers anymore. They are not the star-makers. They are a service industry that has forgotten what their prime product is.

  • On the post: Is The iPad The Disneyland Of Computers?

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2010 @ 09:41am

    Devices? (was Re: Matt)

    If by devices, you mean iPhone, iPod, iPad, AppleTV, then I'll accept your statement.

    If you include the laptops and desktops, then I'll have to point out that there is no closed ecosystem for those devices.

    They're as open as any other general purpose computing system.

    OS-X even comes with GCC. Can't get much more open than that.

    Scott

  • On the post: UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2010 @ 08:29pm

    Re: Re: stifling?

    My max print size is 13" by 19". Print costs for a 4x6 is comparable to what local shops charge and it's cheaper for me to print 8x12 or larger than it is to go to anyone in town. There are some online sites that will print cheaper than I can, but by the time you count shipping costs and time as well as an inability to fine tune the print, it's just not worth it. I've sold my prints through art galleries and headlines a couple of shows with them. My point is, however, that the only way to have complete creative freedom is to not have to rely on other people to act as gate keepers for any portion of your creation.

  • On the post: UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2010 @ 09:39am

    stifling?

    Whereas I agree that this store, and others going all the way back to the Kodak kiosks of the 70s, overreacted out of possible fear, I think we're missing one important aspect to creative freedoms.

    When I started having problems with the local shop I had been taking my images to for prints, I went out and bought a printer. Now I can print any image from any source that I want. I have complete creative freedom.

    The real story here is not a stifling of creative freedom, or freedom of speech, but one of a culture of fear created by the gross misinformation being presented by the various govt and corporate propaganda campaigns.

    Copyright issues have become extremely complex. Legal liability issues surrounding copyright has become even more complex.

    Without the legal and financial resources to establish, then defend, a policy that can work through those complexities, businesses will almost always enact a policy that is simple and effective for what they perceive as their majority customer base.

    Free markets are wonderful things, though. If you run into a company that has a brain-dead policy such as the one in this article, walk across the street and spend your money at one that doesn't.

    If you can't find one locally, there are online alternatives. And ulitmately, you can put your resources into acquiring the means to achieve your creative goals without any outside interference or relying on the whims of others.

    Scott

  • On the post: Werewolf TV Show Blocked From DVD Release Due To Music Licensing

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2009 @ 03:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Copied off the Air and 'shared' much better again....

    Yes, in a way.

    If my business model does not include income from a song because I refuse to release that song into the market, then I have *LOST* nothing when that song shows up on P2P networks.

    I have *gained* recognition and publicity because there is yet another work of art associated with me.

    There is a massive underground culture around move and tv scores. Not the edited, or sometimes re-produced, 60 minute CDs, but for the original unedited scores. Many of these scores are never released to the public for purchase, but they still hit the nets in various ways.

    The studios have lost no potential sales, they have experienced no material losses, they have only gained a following of fans of a composer or a studio.

  • On the post: Another Author Has A Book Leak, And Offers Up The 'Oopsie' Version For Sale

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2008 @ 01:12pm

    Re: Um....this is an orange not an apple

    This leak was accidental and yes, that does mean it's a leak.

    What the article above is comparing is the reaction of two different media companies and how they handled the undesired and unauthorized release of their intellectual property.

    In one case you have a reaction that most likely negatively impacted sales, in the other, you generate an additional revenue stream from something that's already in the wild.

    Neither company can put the genie back in the bottle but they can decide if they want to capitalize on the unauthorized release or take steps to inhibit the revenues they could have generated.

    Scott

  • On the post: Another Author Has A Book Leak, And Offers Up The 'Oopsie' Version For Sale

    Scott@DreamlandVisions ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2008 @ 12:46pm

    Baen get's it.

    Unlike the **AA and other 'media' companies, Baen publishing has "gotten it" for 8+ years. They've been selling DRM free electronic books of their entire catalog for years. They also give away quite a number of titles for free or on CD's bundled with hardbacks.

    They encourage their readers and fans to spread the love and give copies of the cd's that come with the hardbacks out to friends and families.

    Contrary to the popular belief, every time they give a book away for free, sales of the dead tree edition, as well as that author's entire back catalog go up and stay there.

    Look around on the Baen website and the Webscription website to find a series of articles by Eric Flint on the economics of their electronic book system. It's great reading and includes hard numbers on sales trends when you know how to handle and market in a zero-scarcity market.

    Scott

Next >>