See, there's this thing called an emoticon. It's meant to convey an emotion that might otherwise be lost in the medium of the writtent word. For example, the ;-) is the wink emoticon and is sometimes used to convey sarcasm. Glad I could help.
So, you're saying that Japanese copyright is not based on "promoting the progress"? Do you know this for a fact or are you just saying that it's not necessarilly based on the same principles as in the US? If it's not based on promoting the progress, what is it based on? Enriching the elite?
Eventually, as these new business models and new institutions work themselves out, it'll suddenly seem "obvious" what the right answers were
Reminds me of this quote...
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
Ridiculed - "They're letting people decide how much they want to pay for the album! Ha! How stupid!"
Violently opposed - "We have to have this new law so that our profits, uh...I mean the profits of the artists we represent are protected!"
Accepted as self-evident - "Well, duh. Everyone knows that selling t-shirts was the solution all along." ;-)
I find it interesting that the linked article doesn't actually provide any justification for the extension. Oh, other than that the "JASRAC, other rights holders societies and music industry bodies in Japan" want it. At least in America, the RIAA/MPAA has the decency to lie to us to our face.
Presented with this confrontation, their reply would surely be that they would have made even *more* money if not for piracy. Then, to deflect any accusation of greed, they'd say that the regular behind-the-scenes people were suffering because of this lost revenue, not the bigwigs. (See that recent 60 Minutes fluff piece on movie piracy.) But wait, wouldn't this just prove that these record-breaking profits are staying at the top and not trickling down to the behind-the-scenes people?
It just seems sometimes that the movie industry's strategy (and the defences of their strategies) have only one level of complexity. As soon as you ask a single follow-up question or combine two statements together, things fall apart. I'd pay to see a live debate with Mike and some representative from the RIAA or MPAA so I could see their paper-thin arguments get torn to shreds.
In this example, I'd agree that this is "sneaky". But the impression I get from the TD post is that the whole concept of default judgements is "sneaky", not the "sue John Doe when you know it's really Alice" technique.
Registering serial numbers is used more as a way to track customers than as a method for anti-piracy. The "problem" they solve is that the majority of people who bought software never sent in their registration cards. It's a marketing thing.
I guess you can take "registering" a couple of different ways, but I took the AC to mean entering a GUID that is printed somewhere on the jewel box during the installation. These games don't (or didn't) "phone home" to confirm the GUID or make sure that you've only installed it so many times. They just run it through a local process that confirms whether the GUID is valid. So, it sounds like you're talking more about the Spore-like DRM.
In any case, is the GUID a form of DRM? I think so, albeit a very light form.
I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by the findings
Well, if by "game developers", they mean the people who actually develop the games and not the individuals how own a development company or (if you really want to get loose with the term) the publishers, then it shouldn't be surprising at all. The people who do the grunt work of developing games are gamers themselves, so they'd be just as annoyed with DRM as anyone else.
From the looks of the TIGA web site, the organization which sponsored the study, it does appear that they're talking about the actual developers. So, yeah, the findings make sense to me.
230 case after 230 case, service providers are winning, so now the focus turns to individual users, and now you're saying this is "not a good thing"?
I would have to agree. TechDirt states on a regular basis that the infringers are responsible, not the parties which host the infringing content or direct users to it. I actually agree with this wholeheartedly. Third-parties should not be held accountable for the actions of their members.
So, how is going after the infringers "not a good thing"? Because some people host content anonymously and can't be tracked down to explain or, if you like, defend their uploaded content, it's deemed underhanded? It seems to me that the "problem" has more to do with anonymous content posting than with the process of default judgements. At least with this approach, a big content company can't just send an e-mail to YouTube and demand that they take something down and it happens. So, again, how is this wrong? Isn't this the natural and expected result 230 safe harbor clause coupled with the fact that some people post content anonymously?
(On the other hand, IANAL, but it would seem to make sense that the lawyers would at least be required notify the alleged infringer via the same mechanism by which the content was posted. As in, if you post a YouTube video, send a notification to the YouTube account.)
No no no. You've got it all wrong. Hopefully the PPCA will see this effort as a mere nuisance and not back down at all. Then, only after it's too late and the clubs, gyms, and restaraunts have been weaned off of the labels represented by the PPCA, they'll realize their horrific blunder. In your scenario, they'd still have a dictator, albeit a benevolent one. In the omg-what-have-we-done scenario, they'd actually end up with a freer market for music.
I've had a good overall experience with Steam, but I'd have to agree that this is a good tactic. The boycott will likely have little impact, but if the Steam support lines are flooded with people wanting a store credit because they can't play MW2 on the promised date, then Steam may be able to exert at least some pressure on Infinity Ward. Am I holding my breath? No, but at this point, I think the only way this whole overburdonsome DRM problem is going to get resolved is when two corporations have to battle it out, not when there are boycotts, petitions, or sternly-worded letters. (Same goes for copyright reform.)
And then he could have followed by noting that the most profitable movies were the most pirated.
This is a really good point. If their concern is not really on the industry as a whole, but on particular movies that are impacted by piracy, then surely she would have an example or two ready. "Wait, what? You're now saying that it's individual movies that are in trouble, but you can't quote a single example of a movie that has not been profitable because of piracy? Hmmm."
I think he simply meant that at 80 years, he's way past the point where a person would have usually had to work i.e. he would have been able to live off of his retirement savings. Even if this is not so in the particular case, the perception is there so it would be a more compelling argument is younger authors would make this same decision.
What this story shows is that more and more journalists are recognizing that the traditional route isn't as effective, and that self-promotion is the new model of career advancement.
Well, I did acknowledge that personal reputation could be considered more important these days than just the reputation of your employer. However, I still stand by my opinion that ego was a big part of this guy's decision, rather than just career advancement. As another poster pointed out, the guy is 80. He's probably not going to advance his career too much more than he already has.
We've suggested in the past that newspapers who decide to put up a paywall may find that their best reporters decide to go elsewhere, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement.
I agree with the prediction that more authors will resist paywalls, but I'm not so sure that the primary concern is "career advancement". The example is an author who quit the New York Times, one of the most well-known and respected publishers on the planet, in order to write for his own blog. Not exactly the traditional model for career advancement. While you can make an argument that your personal reputation is more important than the reputation of your current employer, I think this has more to do with ego than any concerns for career advancement. Not egotism, just the general idea that authors place a very high value on the size of their audience, in many cases even when it overrides income or overall career concerns.
OK, you give the music away so you can sell other products. I understand that. One of those other products is concerts. Now you want to give those away too?
"We have get rid of those player pianos! No one will want to see a person playing the piano any more if they're around!"
"We have to get rid of video tape! No one will want to go to the movie theatres if they can watch a movie at home!"
Don't they have boards and parent companies who monitor what's happening?
OK, I'll bite...
Of course they do, but they're as blind to the changes in the market as the record labels are. The boards of directors and the parent companies are fed the same "no money, no content" line and, since it makes sense from their traditional perspective, they eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.
That line about "We will not let that happen again" in regards to MTV puts things in perspective for me. I can really see some record exec saying this. The problem of course is that they've learned the wrong lesson. It's not that MTV made a bunch of money by promoting your product. It's that you couldn't promote your product as well or that you couldn't figure out a way to make money in different ways given the changed market.
Consumers are increasingly fed up with bogus legal restrictions that try to prevent what the technology clearly allows.
I couldn't agree more. One level of consumer frustration is with the level of technological progress. For example, George Costanza asking "When are they gonna have the flying cars, already?" That's bad enough, but at least understandable. But when you know that something is now technologically possible, but it's being restricted because of some misguided business model or IP law, it becomes exponentially more frustrating.
I think that's why all of these attempts to hold back the tide of technology are (eventually) doomed to failure. Even with the threat of legal action or having their Internet connection taken away, people know that you can have more music than any normal person in a previous generation could buy in a lifetime at their fingertips. How can you expect to have a long-term business if you're relying on people resisting such a great temptation?
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: (as Hulser)
See, there's this thing called an emoticon. It's meant to convey an emotion that might otherwise be lost in the medium of the writtent word. For example, the ;-) is the wink emoticon and is sometimes used to convey sarcasm. Glad I could help.
Re: (as Hulser)
So, you're saying that Japanese copyright is not based on "promoting the progress"? Do you know this for a fact or are you just saying that it's not necessarilly based on the same principles as in the US? If it's not based on promoting the progress, what is it based on? Enriching the elite?
(as Hulser)
Eventually, as these new business models and new institutions work themselves out, it'll suddenly seem "obvious" what the right answers were
Reminds me of this quote...
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
Ridiculed - "They're letting people decide how much they want to pay for the album! Ha! How stupid!"
Violently opposed - "We have to have this new law so that our profits, uh...I mean the profits of the artists we represent are protected!"
Accepted as self-evident - "Well, duh. Everyone knows that selling t-shirts was the solution all along." ;-)
(as Hulser)
I find it interesting that the linked article doesn't actually provide any justification for the extension. Oh, other than that the "JASRAC, other rights holders societies and music industry bodies in Japan" want it. At least in America, the RIAA/MPAA has the decency to lie to us to our face.
(as Hulser)
My new favorite quote...
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Gerald Ford
(as Hulser)
Presented with this confrontation, their reply would surely be that they would have made even *more* money if not for piracy. Then, to deflect any accusation of greed, they'd say that the regular behind-the-scenes people were suffering because of this lost revenue, not the bigwigs. (See that recent 60 Minutes fluff piece on movie piracy.) But wait, wouldn't this just prove that these record-breaking profits are staying at the top and not trickling down to the behind-the-scenes people?
It just seems sometimes that the movie industry's strategy (and the defences of their strategies) have only one level of complexity. As soon as you ask a single follow-up question or combine two statements together, things fall apart. I'd pay to see a live debate with Mike and some representative from the RIAA or MPAA so I could see their paper-thin arguments get torn to shreds.
Re: (as Hulser)
In this example, I'd agree that this is "sneaky". But the impression I get from the TD post is that the whole concept of default judgements is "sneaky", not the "sue John Doe when you know it's really Alice" technique.
Re: Re: (as Hulser)
Registering serial numbers is used more as a way to track customers than as a method for anti-piracy. The "problem" they solve is that the majority of people who bought software never sent in their registration cards. It's a marketing thing.
I guess you can take "registering" a couple of different ways, but I took the AC to mean entering a GUID that is printed somewhere on the jewel box during the installation. These games don't (or didn't) "phone home" to confirm the GUID or make sure that you've only installed it so many times. They just run it through a local process that confirms whether the GUID is valid. So, it sounds like you're talking more about the Spore-like DRM.
In any case, is the GUID a form of DRM? I think so, albeit a very light form.
(as Hulser)
I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by the findings
Well, if by "game developers", they mean the people who actually develop the games and not the individuals how own a development company or (if you really want to get loose with the term) the publishers, then it shouldn't be surprising at all. The people who do the grunt work of developing games are gamers themselves, so they'd be just as annoyed with DRM as anyone else.
From the looks of the TIGA web site, the organization which sponsored the study, it does appear that they're talking about the actual developers. So, yeah, the findings make sense to me.
Re: This is stupid. (as Hulser)
230 case after 230 case, service providers are winning, so now the focus turns to individual users, and now you're saying this is "not a good thing"?
I would have to agree. TechDirt states on a regular basis that the infringers are responsible, not the parties which host the infringing content or direct users to it. I actually agree with this wholeheartedly. Third-parties should not be held accountable for the actions of their members.
So, how is going after the infringers "not a good thing"? Because some people host content anonymously and can't be tracked down to explain or, if you like, defend their uploaded content, it's deemed underhanded? It seems to me that the "problem" has more to do with anonymous content posting than with the process of default judgements. At least with this approach, a big content company can't just send an e-mail to YouTube and demand that they take something down and it happens. So, again, how is this wrong? Isn't this the natural and expected result 230 safe harbor clause coupled with the fact that some people post content anonymously?
(On the other hand, IANAL, but it would seem to make sense that the lawyers would at least be required notify the alleged infringer via the same mechanism by which the content was posted. As in, if you post a YouTube video, send a notification to the YouTube account.)
Re: (as Hulser)
No no no. You've got it all wrong. Hopefully the PPCA will see this effort as a mere nuisance and not back down at all. Then, only after it's too late and the clubs, gyms, and restaraunts have been weaned off of the labels represented by the PPCA, they'll realize their horrific blunder. In your scenario, they'd still have a dictator, albeit a benevolent one. In the omg-what-have-we-done scenario, they'd actually end up with a freer market for music.
Re: only one thing to do... (as Hulser)
I've had a good overall experience with Steam, but I'd have to agree that this is a good tactic. The boycott will likely have little impact, but if the Steam support lines are flooded with people wanting a store credit because they can't play MW2 on the promised date, then Steam may be able to exert at least some pressure on Infinity Ward. Am I holding my breath? No, but at this point, I think the only way this whole overburdonsome DRM problem is going to get resolved is when two corporations have to battle it out, not when there are boycotts, petitions, or sternly-worded letters. (Same goes for copyright reform.)
Re: (as Hulser)
And then he could have followed by noting that the most profitable movies were the most pirated.
This is a really good point. If their concern is not really on the industry as a whole, but on particular movies that are impacted by piracy, then surely she would have an example or two ready. "Wait, what? You're now saying that it's individual movies that are in trouble, but you can't quote a single example of a movie that has not been profitable because of piracy? Hmmm."
Re: Re: (as Hulser)
I think he simply meant that at 80 years, he's way past the point where a person would have usually had to work i.e. he would have been able to live off of his retirement savings. Even if this is not so in the particular case, the perception is there so it would be a more compelling argument is younger authors would make this same decision.
Re: Re: "Career advancement" vs. ego (as Hulser)
What this story shows is that more and more journalists are recognizing that the traditional route isn't as effective, and that self-promotion is the new model of career advancement.
Well, I did acknowledge that personal reputation could be considered more important these days than just the reputation of your employer. However, I still stand by my opinion that ego was a big part of this guy's decision, rather than just career advancement. As another poster pointed out, the guy is 80. He's probably not going to advance his career too much more than he already has.
"Career advancement" vs. ego (as Hulser)
We've suggested in the past that newspapers who decide to put up a paywall may find that their best reporters decide to go elsewhere, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement.
I agree with the prediction that more authors will resist paywalls, but I'm not so sure that the primary concern is "career advancement". The example is an author who quit the New York Times, one of the most well-known and respected publishers on the planet, in order to write for his own blog. Not exactly the traditional model for career advancement. While you can make an argument that your personal reputation is more important than the reputation of your current employer, I think this has more to do with ego than any concerns for career advancement. Not egotism, just the general idea that authors place a very high value on the size of their audience, in many cases even when it overrides income or overall career concerns.
Re: (as Hulser)
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
- Oscar Wilde
Re: (as Hulser)
OK, you give the music away so you can sell other products. I understand that. One of those other products is concerts. Now you want to give those away too?
"We have get rid of those player pianos! No one will want to see a person playing the piano any more if they're around!"
"We have to get rid of video tape! No one will want to go to the movie theatres if they can watch a movie at home!"
Who watches the watchers? (as Hulser)
Don't they have boards and parent companies who monitor what's happening?
OK, I'll bite...
Of course they do, but they're as blind to the changes in the market as the record labels are. The boards of directors and the parent companies are fed the same "no money, no content" line and, since it makes sense from their traditional perspective, they eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.
That line about "We will not let that happen again" in regards to MTV puts things in perspective for me. I can really see some record exec saying this. The problem of course is that they've learned the wrong lesson. It's not that MTV made a bunch of money by promoting your product. It's that you couldn't promote your product as well or that you couldn't figure out a way to make money in different ways given the changed market.
Temptation (as Hulser)
Consumers are increasingly fed up with bogus legal restrictions that try to prevent what the technology clearly allows.
I couldn't agree more. One level of consumer frustration is with the level of technological progress. For example, George Costanza asking "When are they gonna have the flying cars, already?" That's bad enough, but at least understandable. But when you know that something is now technologically possible, but it's being restricted because of some misguided business model or IP law, it becomes exponentially more frustrating.
I think that's why all of these attempts to hold back the tide of technology are (eventually) doomed to failure. Even with the threat of legal action or having their Internet connection taken away, people know that you can have more music than any normal person in a previous generation could buy in a lifetime at their fingertips. How can you expect to have a long-term business if you're relying on people resisting such a great temptation?