Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

  • Thread starter drumming sort of person
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, sort of. The platform they built and marketed allows them to sell advertising. By it's nature, it's agnostic towards the actual content and it's more accurate to just say that google advertises on their own platform that some users may upload copyrighted content to despite efforts to prevent.

Are you serious? Google makes money simply by operating a virtual sphere for advertisers, the content just happens to be there? But hey, of course the content has no bearing on the commercial succes of the platform... content, who needs it after all?
You either did not read one of my previous replies or you are just outright ignoring the point I made:
The content is the key, who goes online just to stare at adverts?

Nobody is entitled to a wage, living or otherwise. You either sell a good/service relative to it's supply/demand/value, or you work for someone else who will pay you a wage corresponding to the value they assign your work tasks.

In the best possible case this statement could be taken as a cold, calculating, economics-based evaluation.
In the worst case it is just cold, cynical and lacking in a basic consideration of the human element in society. You know, human beings? The ones that kind of constitute society? Not units, or robots, or spreadsheets...

I prefer to be level-headed in these debates but your statement has hit a nerve. Admittedly, I'm interpreting your words in a certain manner, but only because the tone of your posts as well as a number of your statements seem to lean heavily towards a notion or "free market über alles".

I'm not keen on the ideas that elevate economics to a such a dominant and overriding position in society that it undermines basic human decency.
I'm no historian but I'm aware that this kind of approach has led to reprehensible decisions in the past. Irish Potato Famine ring a bell? Ireland was under the control of the British Empire then which decided not to intervene in any serious manner in the ongoing humanitarian crisis. They argued that the "market would sort itself out". What the hell?

Either we decide that we live in a civilised society, or we opt for the "wild west economics" where it's every person for themselves.
 
This is why Google is the giant of the “Innovation Industry” here is one of the most beautifully executed legal kludges I’ve ever seen. Google date rapes the spirit of the law while keeping to the letter.

The new boss thinks we’re stupid.

Won't get fooled again?

So for now let’s just say artists share of revenue from spotify and other streaming services is:

Unknown and subject to possibly shady deals.

Sounds just like the old boss right?

Apparently the fooling continues after all...


If iTunes' recorded music store were its own separate company, its gross revenues would represent over 30% of the market. It would be the biggest recorded music company by revenue except UMG. Apple is the most valuable company in the world. In a way you can argue that Apple IS The Man 2.0. But unlike UMG , WMG or Sony, Apple (or any of the digital music stores) does not recycle any of their revenues back into the creation and development of artists and songs. And this is part of the problem.

Wow, DSOP. Your entire post is insightful and raises serious questions.

It's also the post you should have written at the beginning!

This thread degenerated far too quickly into technical talk that ignored the basic issue which I think is a musicians right to a fair share of the profits when their "content" creates wealth.

You have finally provided some examples that show that this basic principle is being heavily undermined.
 
So all this to say Apple doesn't pay music royalties? Since when? There was some hubbub about them not paying during their free trial period, but that was it. Apple may be big, but not that big...
 
Last edited:
In the best possible case this statement could be taken as a cold, calculating, economics-based evaluation.
In the worst case it is just cold, cynical and lacking in a basic consideration of the human element in society. You know, human beings? The ones that kind of constitute society? Not units, or robots, or spreadsheets...

I prefer to be level-headed in these debates but your statement has hit a nerve. Admittedly, I'm interpreting your words in a certain manner, but only because the tone of your posts as well as a number of your statements seem to lean heavily towards a notion or "free market über alles".

I'm not keen on the ideas that elevate economics to a such a dominant and overriding position in society that it undermines basic human decency.

Once again, I have to thank M.S. for taking the time to articulate these things.
 
I'm not keen on the ideas that elevate economics to a such a dominant and overriding position in society that it undermines basic human decency.

Supply and demand is law of free market economics. It's not something we simply get to choose whether or not we participate. Charity, on the other hand.... Like the $1000 I give to my local symphony each year.....
 
The content is the key, who goes online just to stare at adverts?

One of the things he's on which he's been most consistent is that content is valueless, and is barely even a thing. Hence the insistence on referring to content as 1s and 0s or "computer data." He knows that's laughably false, and offensive to people in the content business, so he's pretending that's not what he's saying. But what he's saying makes no sense if he doesn't believe that.

In the best possible case this statement could be taken as a cold, calculating, economics-based evaluation.

It's Libertarianism. Both watso and kamak are followers of it. It's worship of a fantasy version of so-called free market economics and personal liberty.

Either we decide that we live in a civilised society, or we opt for the "wild west economics" where it's every person for themselves.

It's funny, they pretend to be in favor of a wild west scenario-- that's the good face-- what they want is monopoly power. "Competition is for losers" is the actual mantra of Libertarians with power. There is a lot of strong preying on the weak in that worldview.
 
The bandwidth and symmetrical capabilities of fiber will become more and more critical to the businesses, schools, hospitals and residents in every community because all of these constituents will be using technology on a daily basis that requires it. Therefore, communities need to find a way to provide this essential service to not only meet minimum expectations but to also remain competitive from an economic development standpoint..

No, no, no. Please, stop. I design and build networks for a living; there are mathematical algorithms that we use to generate oversubscription models (5:1, 20:1, etc.). Oh, and just FYI, we've been using fiber for about 5 decades now. There is nothing more inherent in fiber that gives it "symmetrical" capabilities vs. ethernet.
 
It's Libertarianism. Both watso and kamak are followers of it. It's worship of a fantasy version of so-called free market economics and personal liberty.


I'm only Libertarian because I live in the US. The reason is that I want as few laws as possible to affect me in the least way possible. It's because I think that other people are 'usually' idiots, and I don't like when idiots tell me what to do. I know this because I'm an idiot myself.

My personal politics are more in line with something like the Venus Project... Resource based economics, hyper-communism, etc. I view money as the source of all evil and think that society would be better off without it.
 
Supply and demand is law of free market economics. It's not something we simply get to choose whether or not we participate.


This thread is about much much more than just free market economics.

Human society and our interactions are about much much more than just free market economics.

We may be beholden to the constraints and requirements of a physical existence in a physical world, but this does not mean that our species needs to be a slave to systems of our own creation.

Those arguing strictly upon technical and free market lines in this debate have sorely neglected humanity in their considerations.
 
Those arguing strictly upon technical and free market lines in this debate have sorely neglected humanity in their considerations.

We're either in the money game, or we're out of the money game. We (unfortunately) are born into it. Outside of that, we have only the charitable and the indigent.

We're free to create something, set a price, and try to convince others to pay that price. Unfortunately, we're trying to sell copied recorded music, which is effectively worthless given that copying is instantaneous, ubiquitous, moral, and requires no effort. Convincing others that your creation has value requires a lot more than saying "I need to pay my bills", because that's only valuable to you, not them.

If we want to get out of the money game, we need to invent a new game. Resource based economics is the only other game I have familiarity with, and it's not going to happen in my lifetime. If you have other alternatives that don't include putting people in jail for drawing a mouse with big ears, I'm happy to grok it.

EDIT: Sorry for the gross overuse of commas.
 
Last edited:
One of the things he's on which he's been most consistent is that content is valueless, and is barely even a thing.
My admission that it has little to no inherent monetary value does not equal "value-less". If you can demonstrate value to consumers and get them to pay, you might even be able to make a living on that content. What you can't do, is use the government or unacceptable technologies to force an artificial value you like.

Hence the insistence on referring to content as 1s and 0s or "computer data." He knows that's laughably false, and offensive to people in the content business, so he's pretending that's not what he's saying. But what he's saying makes no sense if he doesn't believe that.
1's and 0's is computer data. A very different thing than physical objects that cannot be indefinitely and instantaneously copied with no effort. At a very minimum, your music encoded and on websites has value to build your brand, spread your art and generate traffic on the web. It also has it's intrinsic artistic and inspirational value.

It's Libertarianism. Both watso and kamak are followers of it. It's worship of a fantasy version of so-called free market economics and personal liberty.
I do identify with a lot of libertarian-ism, but for the record, I'm a staunch non-partisan. There are parts of both major government philosophies I agree with and parts I don't. As you point out, I also identify with other ideas outside of those hard-line red or blue standpoints. I've voted for both camps depending on their actual stance on issues I care about.

It's funny, they pretend to be in favor of a wild west scenario-- that's the good face-- what they want is monopoly power. "Competition is for losers" is the actual mantra of Libertarians with power. There is a lot of strong preying on the weak in that worldview.
There's a lot of strong preying on the weak in the entirety of nature. It's been the case in every single human society and civilization, even if they specifically set out to be the opposite. The corporations we form to unite and insulate against personal responsibility are no different.

Are you of the socialist, or communist mind set? Please note that I asked you instead of projecting as you did to me. I would appreciate if your assumptions and projections could be minimized towards me. I'm happy to clarify anything you would like.
 
...copying is instantaneous... moral, and requires no effort...

Convincing others that your creation has value requires a lot more than saying "I need to pay my bills", because that's only valuable to you, not them.

Moral? Slippery slope this one me thinks...

Like I have said many times in this thread: if others are "using" someones creation then by doing so they confirm that it has value for others. And even more so if the creation contributes to the commercial activity of some.
Whether the use of that "creation" is difficult to regulate or not does not diminish the fundamental principle that the creator can justifiably demand their share of the rewards.

You may be right that appealing to a sense of fairness on an individual level would be largely fruitless, as individuals we are relatively selfish. But we exist in a collective called society and it is through this collective that humanity can excercise it's nobler sentiments, such as fairplay.
If I "need to pay my bills", then so does everyone else. So (almost) everyone has an interest that society maintains a just playing field in which nobody's individual interests are favoured over others. Economic libertarians might not like it but the government, the state and its bodies (a supreme court for example) are the ones who need to ensure that a fair balance is maintained and that the excesses of the free market are tempered.
Society cannot capitulate in the face of challenges to our principles just because of some technicalities. When this happens, the behaviour of individuals also begins to decline...
 
If we want to get out of the money game, we need to invent a new game. Resource based economics is the only other game I have familiarity with, and it's not going to happen in my lifetime. If you have other alternatives that don't include putting people in jail for drawing a mouse with big ears, I'm happy to grok it.

I've been urging others here to see the issue as one of principle, a wider issue, instead of focusing narrowly on technicalities. But I hadn't anticipated the idea that this issue might be rooted in deeper flaws in our economic system.

We may be straying far off topic, but I commend you for suggesting a complete departure towards something altogether different. You certainly saw a much wider issue than I did.

And perhaps you have a point. Not enough to change the rules of the game, we have to change the game itself perhaps...
 
Are you serious? Google makes money simply by operating a virtual sphere for advertisers, the content just happens to be there? But hey, of course the content has no bearing on the commercial succes of the platform... content, who needs it after all?
It doesn't just happen to be there. Users that Google does not control put it there. Those users who are stealing music to "sell" through google's platform are the ones who bear responsibility for the uploaded content. Expecting google to do so is not realistic, and would not work. The internet, hackers and it's users will always be a more effective force than any attempts google makes to automatically "clean" their systems of content that someone has or could potentially claim copyright infringement against.


You either did not read one of my previous replies or you are just outright ignoring the point I made:
The content is the key, who goes online just to stare at adverts?
I've read everything, but can't respond to it all efficiently. Are you going to claim you've addressed all and every point I've made? For what it's worth, I like your input, though I think you're being kind of idealistic without thinking through beyond the poor artists who don't get all their royalties they feel entitled to due to the old system that (sort of) worked in the past before things became truly digital.

In the best possible case this statement could be taken as a cold, calculating, economics-based evaluation.
Yea, or it could be taken as the literal reality in a capitalist profit society. I'm sorry you feel it's cold, but people who work hard can earn a living in our society.

Who should control art? Who should be in charge, and why? Should the government pass legislation to protect the artist when the society doesn't value art the same as the artist does? Why? If anyone could make a good living being an artist because the government forces it, why would anyone do anything else? Why do you suppose people pay to go to the concerts or movies, then go home and download other movies and music?

In the worst case it is just cold, cynical and lacking in a basic consideration of the human element in society. You know, human beings? The ones that kind of constitute society? Not units, or robots, or spreadsheets...
At one point in my young life I was somewhat of a communist and the only thing that mattered to me was the "human element". I just can't view it as a realistic goal anymore for a myriad of reasons. Apologies for the projection here, but your comments seem to be leaning towards wealth and or resource distribution and lots of government oversight. None of that will fly here in the states.

I prefer to be level-headed in these debates but your statement has hit a nerve. Admittedly, I'm interpreting your words in a certain manner, but only because the tone of your posts as well as a number of your statements seem to lean heavily towards a notion or "free market über alles".
Well, like I said, if you're counting on greedy profit-driven capitalist structure to value art and artists as they value stocks and stuff, well, you're dreaming. As you point out, it's dog eat dog, not dog give some of his stuff to starving artist because of how hard their life is.

I feel bad for all the mom n pop stores and retailers who can't hack it with all the new technology also, but I won't support legislation to artificially prop them up either.

I'm not keen on the ideas that elevate economics to a such a dominant and overriding position in society that it undermines basic human decency.
I'm no historian but I'm aware that this kind of approach has led to reprehensible decisions in the past. Irish Potato Famine ring a bell? Ireland was under the control of the British Empire then which decided not to intervene in any serious manner in the ongoing humanitarian crisis. They argued that the "market would sort itself out". What the hell?
Ask folks from Cuba if the opposite policies of ours really eliminated suffering and unfairness.

Either we decide that we live in a civilised society, or we opt for the "wild west economics" where it's every person for themselves.
Disagree. I don't believe it's one or the other only.
 
My admission that it has little to no inherent monetary value does not equal "value-less". If you can demonstrate value to consumers and get them to pay, you might even be able to make a living on that content. What you can't do, is use the government or unacceptable technologies to force an artificial value you like.

Well, you can dance around all you like on what the meaning of "value" is, in this conversation we're talking about monetary value.

This conversation is also about illegal and quasi-legal activity. When has the onus ever been on sellers to convince people not to steal their product?

The value is not artificial, it is literal. If the Beatles put a video on YouTube, people come to YouTube to view the video, and YouTube makes advertising money off those visitors, the money they make is the actual dollar value of the Beatles video.

Even if you are unpersuaded by my making that elementary point for the 90th time, it's not really your business whether the value of creative work is "real" or "artificial." It's the law. You're going to have to lobby congress to get copyright law thrown out.

1's and 0's is computer data. A very different thing than physical objects that cannot be indefinitely and instantaneously copied with no effort.

Why is it different? Show me the law that says it's different.
 
Well, you can dance around all you like on what the meaning of "value" is, in this conversation we're talking about monetary value.
I'm not dancing, you are. My stance is the literal interpretation of monetary value which comes from the consumers paying for the good or service vs it's availability and demand. You're advocating false, forced value for the good of "artists".

This conversation is also about illegal and quasi-legal activity. When has the onus ever been on sellers to convince people not to steal their product?
Only since the dawn of money systems. When was it decided that non-destructive copying is akin to stealing physical items from their owner?

The value is not artificial, it is literal. If the Beatles put a video on YouTube, people come to YouTube to view the video, and YouTube makes advertising money off those visitors, the money they make is the actual dollar value of the Beatles video.
Right. In this case, youtube decides the value of their content delivery systems and associated advertising with that platform which deploys the content of users across the web. They don't even consider the content being transferred because it's irrelevant when you're simply a dumping ground and not curating or managing that content when possible. The traffic and consumer eyes hold the value here. They don't inherently value beatles songs differently until they generate more traffic, which is what they value.

Even if you are unpersuaded by my making that elementary point for the 90th time, it's not really your business whether the value of creative work is "real" or "artificial." It's the law. You're going to have to lobby congress to get copyright law thrown out.
Nope. I just have to continue to vote with my wallet and not support systems that are harmful to consumers.

Why is it different? Show me the law that says it's different.
A panda is not different from a shrimp because there's no law stating such. How could I have overlooked this simple principle? Makes perfect sense then how digital information is exactly the same thing as a loaf of bread.
 
You just spent a whole thread arguing against net neutrality and saying google should not be able to transmit certain data to certain parties without paying someone.
net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

Net Neutrality is about making sure that everything flows at the same speed, with no throttling and no way to pay for better performance. My issues with Google are with their business practices and refusal to acknowledge and/or deal with the fact that they are abusing and violating many, many laws around the world.
 
No, no, no. Please, stop.

In a symmetric computer network, all devices can transmit and receive data at equal rates. Asymmetric networks, on the other hand, support disproportionately more bandwidth in one direction than the other.

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology exists in both symmetric and asymmetric forms. Asymmetric DSL (ADSL) offers much more bandwidth for downloads by sacrificing bandwidth available for uploads.

Conversely, symmetric DSL (SDSL) supports equal bandwidth in both directions. Internet services for home normally provide ADSL as typical Internet users tend to download much more data than they upload. Business networks more commonly use SDSL.

Besides DSL networking, the terms "symmetry" and "asymmetry" also apply to network design in more general ways. A symmetric network design affords all devices equal access to resources, whereas asymmetric networks segregate access to resources unequally. For example, "pure" P2P networks that do not rely on centralized servers are symmetric, while other P2P networks are asymmetric.

Finally, in network security, both symmetric and asymmetric forms of encryption exist. Symmetric encryption systems share the same encryption keys between both ends of network communication. Asymmetric encryption systems use different encryption keys (such as public and private) on each communication endpoint.
 
There is nothing more inherent in fiber that gives it "symmetrical" capabilities vs. ethernet.

Fiber optic cables are generally more secure than Ethernet cables, as they can’t be intercepted in the same way that Ethernet cables can.

The differences between fiber optic and ethernet cables are numerous, and while it’s likely that eventually fiber optic cables will become more commonplace, for now ethernet cables are likely to reign supreme. Still, as data demands get higher and higher, fiber optic technology will become extremely important — before it’s replaced by an even better and faster standard for data transfer.
 
I'm not dancing, you are. My stance is the literal interpretation of monetary value which comes from the consumers paying for the good or service vs it's availability and demand. You're advocating false, forced value for the good of "artists".

Only since the dawn of money systems. When was it decided that non-destructive copying is akin to stealing physical items from their owner?

Right. In this case, youtube decides the value of their content delivery systems and associated advertising with that platform which deploys the content of users across the web. They don't even consider the content being transferred because it's irrelevant when you're simply a dumping ground and not curating or managing that content when possible. The traffic and consumer eyes hold the value here. They don't inherently value beatles songs differently until they generate more traffic, which is what they value.

Nope. I just have to continue to vote with my wallet and not support systems that are harmful to consumers.


A panda is not different from a shrimp because there's no law stating such. How could I have overlooked this simple principle? Makes perfect sense then how digital information is exactly the same thing as a loaf of bread.

I get it, you don't believe in copyright, you don't believe there should be any such thing as royalty income, you don't think content is an actual thing that can be valued economically. The law states otherwise, so when you state these things like they're facts, everyone reading should be clear that you're really talking about the world as you would have it, not actual legal reality.

Any aspiring pros are certainly crystal clear by now that you have nothing but contempt for the idea of them needing to earn a living, particularly if there's any question of balancing that vs. a few tens of billions of dollars more in Google's coffers. A musician would have to have pretty deep self-loathing to get on board with what you're selling.

All aspiring pro musicians should read Donald Passman's All You Need To Know About The Music Business. Read Jonathan Taplin's Move Fast And Break Things for some clarity on the current state of the music business, what brought it to this point, and what a rational path forward might be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top