IP
mattmaroon.com
mattmaroon.com
You're going to see a lot more 360 deals like the one Jay-Z just did, although they'll be doing them for much smaller amounts from much smaller artists and they will be TERRIBLE deals for the artists. Jay-Z got so much because he has the power, influence, and track record to justify it. The majors want to own the entire vertical but won't create any sort of deal that is going to be fair for new projects.
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fan...
People bandy about "the long tail" as if it's some sort of conclusive proof that conventional economics is in the process of being shaken up by these new distribution methods, when in reality that's just conjecture and doesn't yet seem to be the case.
The vaunted 57% number that the long tail is built on is actually half that.
The days of bands with 100 million fans will be replaced with one hundred bands having 1 million fans each.
And a few bands will have 1 billion fans in a 'flattening the curve' type motion where a band's talent is reflected by their popularity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15wwlnidealab.t.h...
And what do you play?
I've been chewing on a long response for you here, but I think I'll save it for my blog. Instead, the short one: Touring only works at the superstar end of the scale, while recorded music revenue scales with the popularity of the artist. If the price of recorded music falls to zero, the labels don't have so much incentive to sign groups that aren't already at the touring-huge scale, since they're guaranteed to lose money on them...
Also, if just giving away your music made you popular, MTV Cribs would feature a lot more unsigned artists than it does now (namely, zero). Since labels are the only ones in the music industry with the money to do the marketing that's essentially a prerequisite to getting huge, it's in the best interest of the artists for the labels to have the freedom to sign groups that are promising, but not yet big. That freedom comes from CD sales.
You basically took a two sentence argument and stretched it to waste 3 minutes of my time.
It's as if he suddenly decided to think contrarian, then quickly wrote down the first thoughts he could think of.
I used to work in the development division of a very major recording company. Reading his article would be like a competent C++ programmer reading an article about why classes are useful - sure, the article may be correct, but it's pointless reading, except for people who have never even entertained that thought.
As a college student, defending copyright is rare in MY world, and people look at me funny when I tell them I buy CDs, and my brother laughs at me when I say I'm going to support Obsidian by buying their next game full price as soon as it comes out. I liked Matt's article; it was pretty basic analysis, but it was reasonable.
So unless the effect I described is actually part of your personal branding strategy, you may want to rethink it. Because your brand has so many strong factors (name, picture, writings), that people who meet you will already be influenced by your projection of yourself, and this will color their perception of you.
All I'm saying is this: brand yourself a little bit warmer. People will like the impression better.
So does your's.
I've read four or five of your comments on this item only to find that you believe you respresent a vast majority of those reading this article. It's more likely that you don't, as is evidenced by the quite engaging discussions this site is historically known for; discussions being engaging precisely because people don't agree by default. Perhaps instead of steering the conversation you should take part in it. For instance, you could render your opinions about copyright law instead of your opinions about people that write about copyright law.
I'll take the always perfect as a compliment though. Also, do you only read the entries posted here?
You don't see yourself ever seeking employment again? That's a bit... arrogant, isn't it?
I tried to explain the differences as best as I could: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=207440
Copyright infringement has been responsible in increases for 'victim', both in exposure and revenues. Theft has never (that I am aware of) benefited the victim.
Good example, but I think it's more important to point out where copyright and property law come from - that property is accepted in our society as a fundamental right, while copyright is monopoly power which our government may grant "for a limited time" "to promote the progress of useful arts".
See here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.article...
In a more general sense, the problem is "provisioning of public goods":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Creating property where none naturally exists is one solution, but there are others (some good, some bad, depends on the type of good).
Making a sea-steading country is also a good solution. If your servers live there, and can connect to everyone else, it will work.
I don't know how TPB has lasted as long as they have. It is impressive.
I do know that the side benefits of starting your own country could easily finance it. Surprisingly, this is somewhat relevant to Tipjoy if you go out on a long enough timeline.
I think of population of a new country a lot like hiring. You want only the best if you're really trying something new.
Most countries ripe for revolution probably wouldn't be stable enough for the goals. It's like Woody Allen quipped "I just don't want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member"
I'm not sure if you were meaning "connect" physically, but of course there's always satellites, and other non-physical ways to connect.
Realistically though, satellite internet is just too expensive bandwidth wise for it to work for the Pirate Bay.
You could dial the support up or down, maybe giving a disproportional amount to a certain band.
I think you're totally right: unlimited and immediate access to music is just better.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't directly support the artists.
The RIAA can't compete because they are fundamentally no longer part of the exchange. They add nothing. They continue through momentum, and will die soon.
Better for users, but not for producers.
Also, Matt has made the point that the vast majority of people are unwilling to donate when they don't have to.
I'm guessing you have thought though this situation much more thoroughly, and maybe have data on it too; otherwise, I'd be very surprised if things work out so ideally.
Those eyes and ears were supposed to be looking at ads, where more impressions equals a happier advertiser. It isn't obvious how that extends to donation-ware, when everyone can just move on to the next free source of music.
My favorite band is Radiohead. I didn't pay for their most recent album, because it didn't seem worth it. But I have paid over $200 to get 3 tickets to see them in concert this summer.
A few weeks ago, Papa Johns locations in north east Ohio gave away free pizzas worth about $5. People stood outside in the 45 degree weather, with rain, for 2 hours to get that pizza.
That said, I don't think this spells doom for micropayments. A successful "donations" model is Ben & Jerry's Free Cone day - a not-insignificant fraction of people donate to help various causes. I'd be interested to see statistics on this.
This is very silly ... such a position would only be taken by someone who doesn't understand the extent of IP.
IP is a huge blanket term, legally speaking. Patent law, copyright law, and trademark law have very little in common, but are all "IP". I haven't met anyone who seriously argued that we should get rid of patents...
As far as copyright goes, in my experience, most intelligent, impartial, and well-informed individuals tend to converge on the constitutional opinion: "Congress should promote the progress of useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their respective writings" (this is almost a direct quote from article 1, section 8).
The point of copyright law should be to promote progress of useful arts - I think this is the basis on which we should all agree. The term "intellectual property" muddies the discussion because one's right to property is a fundamental right, whereas one's power to restrict other's copying of your work is a power that congress can grant you for a limited time.
Please stop reading this comment Matt. You're stealing it from all the other people who want to read it.
Doesn't that blow your mind? Without this free medium and my 'theft' I would never have even known of abstractbill.
see: http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/03/viacom_v_youtube.html
An automated process blindly converts video from one format into another, and the company hosting the video suddenly has a duty to examine each and every video to look for potential infringements? I don't see how that follows at all.
Of course much of this law is untested, so any lawyer who makes claims about this is most likely just telling you what he thinks he can make a court believe.
It could make sense, depending on the analogy that someone picks. For example, I have a coffee shop with a community message board. Someone posts copyrighted information there - someone tells me about it and I take it down right away. That sounds pretty fair.
But what if I make a whole operation out of it - like if there are pictures, then I take those, clean them up, copy them, frame them, and put them on the wall of my shop. Now it seems like I have a lot more responsibility for what is going on. Is it fair for me to just blindly frame every single picture I find, even if some of the pictures are obviously copyrighted? Anyway that is my logical argument (as opposed to a legal one...)
But those are boring technicalities. What matters is the fundamental question if one can proclaim things like music, literature and images as his property. Technically I can repeat one of your sentences and you can accuse me of stealing.
That's all huge bullshit in my opinion. A song or a movie by itself shouldn't be copyrightable simply because it's not fair: it takes a lot of money to enforce such laws, this is why there are only a few privileged "customers" of this system. I can copy and distribute your blog posts all I want and there is nothing you'll (likely) do about it. This "copyright club" doesn't treat outsiders nicely, this is why Google (clearly and outsider) has been bit so often by those assholes, even something as awesome as their "Street View" is facing idiotic copyright complaints.
And, personally, I believe they will all fail and technology will overtake. We will not be paying for songs and movies, we'll be paying for comfortable theaters with nice sound and live concert performances. And someone with a law degree will have to find a real job.
I believe the founders of the USA had this argument exactly, and this is what they came up with:
The Congress shall have power [...] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Sigh I wish more people read it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.article...
In response to your question: no.
I guess the 'our' is supposed to be Americans. No chance that someone outside the US might read the article or have views on the issue. There are actually those who would argue that this 'chief cultural export' hasn't entirely been a good thing but I guess they don't really count according to this article's viewpoint.
Violence is natural. It must be wrong to criminalize it.
Since you assert that people need not pay attention to the copyright laws which are in place, how does it follow that they'd stop buying music if the laws didn't exist? I would suggest that the success of the iTunes Store in the face of various well-known sharing methods suggests that it can compete without needing copyright law.
Maybe we should go one step further and start saying irregardlessly?