DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM   

Go Back   DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM > General Discussion

General Discussion General discussion forum for all drum related topics. Use this forum to exchange ideas and information with your fellow drummers.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #201  
Old 08-24-2017, 10:57 AM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 386
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradiddle pete View Post
Technology has given us everything we want, at the same time stolen anything we really need. Prince EA.
The one-line hitman strikes again.

You speak like The Oracle but there is much truth in what you say and it will resonate with many people.

We can argue about the nitty gritty, the detailed pros and cons, but at the end of the day we are human beings. It's no good for technology to fulfill our mind's every desire and whim as long as the heart remains discontent.
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #202  
Old 08-24-2017, 11:05 AM
paradiddle pete's Avatar
paradiddle pete paradiddle pete is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: down south
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
The one-line hitman strikes again.

You speak like The Oracle but there is much truth in what you say and it will resonate with many people.

We can argue about the nitty gritty, the detailed pros and cons, but at the end of the day we are human beings. It's no good for technology to fulfill our mind's every desire and whim as long as the heart remains discontent.
Right On Bro!..........!!!!!!
Attached Images
 
__________________
petey poo!
  #203  
Old 08-24-2017, 08:05 PM
KamaK KamaK is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 5,492
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

A step closer to drum-cover videos being deemed non-infringing in the US.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...action-videos/

We're now "officially" allowed to make a video of ourselves watching and talking about another video..... Not that it was ever a violation in the first place.
  #204  
Old 08-25-2017, 01:06 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,643
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #205  
Old 08-25-2017, 02:02 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

If we’re gonna have a dialogue we need to be honest. Right? So Let’s be honest. The fact that many in the tech community keep saying “artists and record labels need to find a new model” is an admission that the current digital status quo doesn’t work. Right? Not for the artist anyway. As I’ll explain it actually makes a lot of money for a lot of companies.

I ran into Bob Weir at the SF Music Tech Summit. He asked what I’d spoke about. I briefly explained that I had a critique of the new digital model cause my data shows that little revenue is flowing to the artists. He replied “I know we got to make it so artists can make a living”. Now this is significant because I assume Bob was there with his longtime songwriting partner Electronic Frontier Foundation Co-Founder John Perry Barlow. Barlow was probably busy pounding the table downstairs shouting “Intellectual Property is not Property” as he is wont to do. Now I must point out that this is quite a radical position for any American to take. The very success of our nation has been built on IP. Silicon Valley is built on IP. Does Barlow give away his royalties from all those Grateful Dead songs he wrote? But I digress.

++++++++++++++++++++

First I need to point out that THERE IS a stable digital music distribution model. We are not still trying to invent it. It’s been here for at least 10 years and has been relatively stable for the last six. It has three legs:

File sharing/Cyber Lockers. MegaUpload, FirstLoad, Pirate Bay, Bittorrent etc etc

Streaming type services. Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, Grooveshark, etc.

Digital Music Stores. iTunes, Amazon Mp3, Rhapsody, Google Play etc

This digital distribution model is firmly entrenched with all of the “distributors” revenue models firmly in place and with the exception of streaming, solidly profitable.

File Sharing.

(Thanks to Ellen Seidler for enlightening me on much of this)

Unlicensed File-sharing sites make money off advertising and upgrades that allow faster downloads of unlicensed materials. As demonstrated in the video “Pop up Pirates” Google and other web advertising companies make money placing ads on these sites as well as making money from people searching for things like “download we are young fun.” Let me quickly demonstrate.

Now note the first two sites are unlicensed. The artist’s own site is #3. iTunes is #4. There is lot’s of data on how important it is to be the first or second link in search results. This is when the Digerati suddenly become ignorant of consumer behavior on the web.

“Nah….you really think unlicensed file sharing has any effect on legal sales?”

Let’s click on the Mp3skull link.

As you can see Mp3skull.com is making money from that Hertz ad. I’m sure it’s not much per view but considering this is the #1 song in the country I’m sure it adds up. And the web advertising company that placed it there is also making money (google?). These are not small companies. And some of these file sharing companies are making big money. Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload anyone?

Now an artist or record label can request that google take these links down. You file a DMCA takedown notice. I sometimes do this. Usually only if an advance copy has leaked and my album is not commercially available yet. But look what happens when you file a DMCA takedown notice with google.

First redo search this time for a 50 Cent track.




Scroll down a bit and you will find that google has included these strange notices.

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org
Google removes the links. It’s required to do this by law. But the next part is not required by law.

Google has chosen to proclaim it has removed this link, and it provides you with a link to the complaint on the (ironically named) Chillingeffects.org. But if you click on “read the DMCA complaint” you are taken to www.chillingeffects.org where you get to see the actual complaint. But more importantly you get to see the offending links. The unlicensed download link you wanted is just one extra click away.


Copy and paste the link into your browser and you can download the file. So really nothing has been accomplished. I can’t imagine I’m the first one to discover this.

(I can’t find a DMCA agent for Chillingeffects.org. If they happen to not have one aren’t they liable for posting these links under DMCA? anybody?)

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.

Apparently they are partially right because Stanford, UC Berkeley, Harvard, University of San Francisco, George Washington School of Law, Santa Clara University of Law and (inexplicably) The University of Maine are all listed as sponsors of this website.

This was from the home page of www.chillingeffects.org

Monitoring the legal climate for internet activity.

A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.


There was a bunch of mumbo jumbo on that site about how it’s supposed to help individuals navigate through the DMCA legal thicket. They claimed the idea was to combat the Chilling Effects of DMCA on free speech. This is all fine and dandy if the typical individual needing help was some poor innocent teenager who didn’t know it was not legal to share long clips of Hugo on her movie review blog.

But dig into the site. Almost all the activity was Twitter or Google publishing the DMCA takedown notices they received. Because you must list your legal name and address on these DMCA notices I believe these were published to specifically intimidate those who ask for links to be removed. I mean I certainly think twice before I file one of these notices with Google specifically because there is a good chance Google will put me this on this site.

Good job university eggheads! Congrats on making it easier for the rich, powerful and unaccountable to intimidate the little guy!

File-sharing: So how much does this part of the digital ecosystem share with artists?

ZERO. NADA. ZILCH.

Old Boss: pays the artist too little.

New Boss: pays the artist nothing.

So this part of the new digital ecosystem is clearly worse than the old system. Plus at least one player profiting from this system seems to be trying to intimidate the artists into not exercising their rights.

Streaming

When I refer to streaming I include not only Spotify, Pandora and other similar services. I also include YouTube. Virtually every song i’ve ever written is streamable on YouTube. Even if it’s just a static shot of the cover and the audio uploaded by some well meaning fan.

Pandora pays the artists according to statutory rates. Personally I’m happy that Spotify is attempting to pay artists, even if it’s not really enough yet. YouTube wouldn’t pay anything if it didn’t have to. So they don’t get my thanks. And Grooveshark pays nothing to artist.

First thing you need to know about streaming? Aside from Pandora there is a huge dispute about how much any of these services pay. And unfortunately I won’t be able to clear it up much.

I have friends, artists and record label execs who swear they or their artists are receiving about .3 to .6 cents a spin from Spotify (a rate some regard as “sustainable”and equitable). Others swear that’s not true, more like hundredths or thousandths of a penny.

I’ve looked at royalty statements from various artists. Both groups appear to be right!

I’ll just add my voice to the call for transparency in Spotify and all streaming licensing. It’s never good when there is no transparency. It inevitably part of some scheme to take advantage of someone somewhere. Usually the artist. Or to quote P.J. O’Rourke “Complexity IS fraud”.

Regardless in the last few months a lot of artists have come out with their personal stories on how their revenues from streaming are quite small. Here is a typical story from Benji Rogers who also runs Pledge Music.

http://www.pledgemusic.com/blog/52-s...ndent-musician

The Black Keys really don’t like spotify.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/indus...06579552.story

So clearly a lot of artists feel they aren’t being adequately compensated.

When pressed on this Spotify seem’s to point the finger at the record labels. And the record labels point back at Spotify. And curiously UMG seems to defend Spotify more than the other labels. No one knows what deal UMG cut with Spotify but clearly they have some sort of stake in Spotify. How this effects revenue flowing to artists is unknown. UMG needs to clarify.

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?



The White Hats.

Finally what about the ‘white hats in the digital music ecosystem? By this I mean the legitimate digital music stores like iTunes, Amazon’s MP3 store, Rhapsody, eMusic and Google’s Play. I call them white hats because this seems to be the only part of the digital music ecosystem which has consistently paid artists. Still if you dig into how the money gets split you start to encounter problems when you compare it to the old record label system.

All the big stores take about 30% of gross on a 99 cent song. But here is the catch. If you are an independent artist you have to go through an “aggregator” to get your songs into iTunes/Amazon. This will cost you a minimum of 9%. Except Google. Google should be commended for not requiring the aggregator for their store. However iTunes represents about 70%of the digital music market. Amazon is a distant second (13%?). I could find no data on Google’s store now called Play.


So for now lets just focus on iTunes. The genius of Steve Jobs was that he was not afraid to be greedy. Like most Apple products, Steve Jobs built the thing he wanted and picked the price and margin he wanted. This is commendable in a CEO. That’s why I own Apple stock. I doubt there were any consumer studies. He didn’t really negotiate with the suppliers and consumers on price. A kind of take it or leave it proposition. Fortunately it paid off for Apple.

Now when you are building a brand new digital music store, a concept no one else has ever really done on a large scale, there is considerable risk. So in 2003 (when iTunes store launched) a 30% margin is totally justified. Nearly a decade later after the concept is proven, after the store has brought millions of new consumers into the apple ecosystem and after billions of dollars of hardware have been sold is 30% a reasonable margin? It’s no longer a risky proposition. I say no. My techie friends immediately point out that all those servers, all those engineers and all that software is really, really expensive.

Ok… then is this another example of the failure of the theory of Disruptive Innovation? So John Dvorak is right when he calls Disruptive Innovation the biggest crock of the millenium? Disruptive innovations are supposed to be much, much cheaper than what they “disrupted”. So if the mom and pop record stores could sell physical product profitably on a 40% margin with all that shipping, returns, breakage shrinkage, real estate and stoned employees AND big chains like best buy and Walmart with their deep discounts could sell music on a 20% margin, then the only conclusion is that the iTunes store is an incredibly wasteful and inefficient way to do business. I don’t think that is the case.

I think that selling music as mp3 downloads from Apple/Amazon servers has to be more efficient than shipping thousands of breakable CDs all over the world. So I think what has happened is that over the years that 30% margin has become parasitic. Parasitic in an economic sense meaning it’s not really justified by the value it’s adding. The 30% is simply the result of iTunes/Amazon being more of a bottleneck or gatekeeper. The fact that sites like http://www.bandcamp.com and http://www.cdbaby.com can do the same job on a lower margin suggests that the 30% is artificially high.

I know the Apple-can-do-no-wrong crowd is sharping their knives right now. But hear me out. If the market lets Apple take 30% they should take 30%. The part of me that is an Apple shareholder applauds this action. And Apple should continue to charge this margin until it is forced to lower it by it’s suppliers or competitors. Until apple really has some reasonable competition, until the music conglomerates figure out it’s in their interest to license new online stores, create other competitors cheaply and efficiently, iTunes is not gonna have any competition. And as iTunes sales grow and physical sales shrink, Apple’s market share is only gonna get bigger. Apple will become more powerful and behave more like a monopoly.

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.

https://thetrichordist.com/2014/04/1...2-years-later/


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++
  #206  
Old 08-25-2017, 02:07 AM
KamaK KamaK is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 5,492
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumming sort of person View Post
The fact that many in the tech community keep saying “artists and record labels need to find a new model” is an admission that the current digital status quo doesn’t work. Right?
No. It's an admission that the current incarnation of copyright is broken, and needs to be rethought.

What is that Simon Peres quote.. Something like:

"If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact - not to be solved, but to be coped with over time."
  #207  
Old 08-25-2017, 02:29 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,643
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
YouTube isn't "the internet", it's a for-profit business. Any other entity who does the same thing will also be a for-profit business. These are not impersonal, unaccountable forces at work here.
Often in our society the entire reason corporations are formed is so that nobody actually has to take personal responsibility.
Also, youtube is google, and google basically IS the internet for the majority of users it is the default and "best" search, data reference, and indeed even hoster of the most public content.

Regardless, in the instance you're responding to, I was in fact referring more to internet technologies in general than a specific one.


Quote:
This is just your personal spin to degrade the value of creative works and pretend intellectual property doesn't exist.
You're not getting it. My "spin" is just as irrelevant as your or the record industries attempts to value something how they want it as opposed to what consumers are actually willing to value the content. It's not up to you or them, and neither one of us can "devalue" something for someone else unless they happen to agree with our "spin"'s logic.

Quote:
You can read up on copyright law to learn that intellectual property does exist, and is as real a concept as anything else in law. And those 1s and 0s clearly are a product, or they would not be the subject of the transaction you admit exists.
Sure, the concept as we've created it exists; and my argument is simply that this concept does not work anymore when you can't control any of the variables or assign the value you would like.

Quote:
They're not random 1s and 0s, they're 1s and 0s encoding a creative work that is attracting users to YouTube and allowing them to sell advertising.
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.

Quote:
It's a very direct, elementary form of economic value and again and again I mention it, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
Nonsense. The concept of ideas and certain arrangements of computer data being property like a sack of flour is not simple, no longer possible to enforce in a meaningful way, and I can turn your last comment around and say you're not acknowledging the reality of our current ability to openly share data and information much quicker than any system or governing body could hope to keep up with.

Quote:
You're not objecting to the fact that these online businesses pay any royalty at all (pittance though it is) for works played on their sites, so you clearly don't actually believe there is no economic transaction here involving the artist.
Why would I object? Because you're projecting a certain mind-set on me? I have no problem with a patent holder or IP holder claiming ownership over what they feel is their property. I have a problem with the way individuals feel that taking away privacy, consumer rights to purchases, and open technological development is acceptable to protect a dying industry and way of life. Involving the government to artificially force things is even worse.

Quote:
I understand I can't force you to be intellectually honest and answer these points.
That's cute. Knock it off with the personal commentary.

Quote:
I guess they mean "the natural market rate if people like this weren't allowing rampant copyright infringement on their site, and paying an unsustainably small royalty, based strictly on what they feel like paying, for legal videos."
Right. That's what I said. They really mean, "natural market rate if we control things our way", not actual market rates that the real consumer base will bear and actual realistic value of data.

Quote:
This is of course a tactic employed by all of these businesses: artificially drive the price of music down to near zero, drive traditional competitors out of business, then clean up. I might not object if they would pay the creative element a living wage, and if they invested in artist development-- something they clearly have no interest in doing.
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.

Quote:
I feel like this is the crux of it for you. Lecturing artists on their "entitlement", and "true" merit, and all the hard work they're not doing.
Lucky for me, you're wrong and your feelings are not relevant, asked for or necessary.

Quote:
There's always this deeply personal resentment right under the surface with very committed piracy/tech boosters. Or it's right out in the open. I've had many of these discussions and I've seen these anti-artist attitudes again and again.
Though I have in the past, I do not "steal" really anything at this point. The market has given me reasonably priced alternatives to consume as much as I want and I use them. If you want to call my music buddies and I exchanging music we want to learn from over youtube stealing, then we'll just have to disagree. Lastly, can you please halt the insinuations that I'm "anti-artist"? It's not true and not necessary.

Quote:
Really? How? You've done nothing but shill for them (that is the correct word for it) this entire discussion.
This statement is entirely false. I might be a shill for freedoms, privacy, and relatively free markets, but not for google or anyone else.
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #208  
Old 08-25-2017, 03:04 AM
KamaK KamaK is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 5,492
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
I have no problem with a patent holder or IP holder claiming ownership over what they feel is their property.
I do... Because it's not their property. Property has a very narrow legal definition. Patents/trademarks/copyrights are government granted rights, not government granted property.

This is why we have both "Property" law, and patent/trademark/copyright law. This is why theft of property is criminal, while violation of patent/trademark/copyright is a civil tort.

I have no problem with a patent/trademark/copyright holder claiming that they have a government granted artificial monopoly.
  #209  
Old 08-25-2017, 03:42 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,803
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by KamaK View Post
I have no problem with a patent/trademark/copyright holder claiming that they have a government granted artificial monopoly.
Man. If your verbiage was any more loaded it would be a literal pack mule. I can tell you're dying to go on an extended discourse about government-granted artificial monopolies.

It appears that you have very serious reservations about the concept of intellectual property. What are your feelings about plagiarism? Do you think it's unethical? Why?
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #210  
Old 08-25-2017, 04:04 AM
KamaK KamaK is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 5,492
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
Man. If your verbiage was any more loaded it would be a literal pack mule. I can tell you're dying to go on an extended discourse about government-granted artificial monopolies.

It appears that you have very serious reservations about the concept of intellectual property. What are your feelings about plagiarism? Do you think it's unethical? Why?
Just calling a spade a spade. The thing I have against "Intellectual Property" is that it does not exist. It's entirely made up. It has no basis in law with the exception of recent efforts by lobbyists trying to convince lawmakers to make copyright infringement a criminal offense. Outside of that, it's just a corporate buzzword that is meant to encompass copyright/trademark/patent/trade-secret.

While "government-granted artificial monopoly" may sound derogatory, it really isn't meant to be that way. That's really what copyright is, and part of the problem arguing with the copyright-troll gestapo is that they don't understand copyright law, the origin of the law, the intent of the law, etc. As someone who has earned an early retirement on copyright, it just makes everyone else look silly arguing about stuff they don't understand.
  #211  
Old 08-25-2017, 04:27 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

U.S. Constitution
Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution.
[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.”
  #212  
Old 08-25-2017, 04:33 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Some of the most powerful people in the music industry hate YouTube. Now, they have a way to destroy it — without destroying fan relationships or feeding piracy.

YouTube clearly doesn’t give a shit.

So why doesn’t the music industry make them give a shit?

The reason is that YouTube has called the music industry’s bluff. They’ve outsmarted the music industry at every turn. And they pay a pittance on music videos because they can. YouTube is not only the largest platform for consuming music, it’s a major defense wall against piracy. Shut down YouTube tomorrow, and watch streaming and download piracy explode. It’s really that simple.

Which is where Spotify comes into the picture...
  #213  
Old 08-25-2017, 04:36 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Sleeping Through a Revolution
https://vimeo.com/122361826
  #214  
Old 08-25-2017, 04:58 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

What is to be done?
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
~ Martin Luther Kind



What is required for a New Renaissance?
  • An open 1 GBPS symmetrical network with multiple providers
  • Network Neutrality
  • Anti-trust enforcement
  • Protection of copyright so the middle class creative worker may earn a living wage
  • A vital public broadcasting system on TV, radio and broadband that would support the best of Amercian art and journalism
  • A global micropayment system
  #215  
Old 08-25-2017, 06:08 AM
vxla vxla is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 550
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumming sort of person View Post
[*]An open 1 GBPS symmetrical network with multiple providers[*]Network Neutrality[/list]
To the points above:
#1 doesn't exist because we don't build symmetrical networks as it's waste of money.
#2 has nothing to do with this discussion.
__________________
Please take a moment for the Bass Drum Pedal Questionnaire
  #216  
Old 08-25-2017, 06:40 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by vxla View Post
we don't build symmetrical networks as it's waste of money.
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.

http://www.symmetricalnet.com/municipalities.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by vxla View Post
#2 has nothing to do with this discussion
Seeing as we're discussing the flow of digital representations of music/video/images/etc. across the Internet, it is directly relevant.
  #217  
Old 08-25-2017, 06:50 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,643
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumming sort of person View Post
What is required for a New Renaissance?
[*]An open 1 GBPS symmetrical network with multiple providers
Overseen and administered by whom? Do the providers get to select what goes on their network, or is it an open platform that also supports smaller and fringe art? Who selects the providers? Is it proprietary to any one owner or set of hardware? How would it keep track of the content that everyone owns and it's associated copyright holders, which may or may not be registered?

Quote:
[*]Network Neutrality
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.

Quote:
[*]Protection of copyright so the middle class creative worker may earn a living wage
Protection of copyright already exists. There are several ways to lodge copyright complaints. What did you have in mind here?

Quote:
[*]A vital public broadcasting system on TV, radio and broadband that would support the best of Amercian art and journalism
"The best"? Who decides what's the best? Is the worst also allowed for it's own merit?

Quote:
[*]A global micropayment system
You got me here. I can't even imagine what you're getting at with this. Instant global payments of varying sizes have been a thing for quite a while now. Who administers the "global micropayment system"? Who keeps it secure and who balances the power those agencies would have over human information flow? If it's global, how do we keep the other nations honest when we don't have authority to act as we'd like in other nations?

Why wouldn't we prefer to keep our payments private and as de-centralized as we please? Who would have access to the payment data in a "global micropayment system"?
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy

Last edited by Dr_Watso; 08-25-2017 at 08:12 AM.
  #218  
Old 08-25-2017, 10:01 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,803
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by KamaK View Post
Just calling a spade a spade. The thing I have against "Intellectual Property" is that it does not exist. It's entirely made up. It has no basis in law with the exception of recent efforts by lobbyists trying to convince lawmakers to make copyright infringement a criminal offense. Outside of that, it's just a corporate buzzword that is meant to encompass copyright/trademark/patent/trade-secret.

While "government-granted artificial monopoly" may sound derogatory, it really isn't meant to be that way. That's really what copyright is, and part of the problem arguing with the copyright-troll gestapo is that they don't understand copyright law, the origin of the law, the intent of the law, etc. As someone who has earned an early retirement on copyright, it just makes everyone else look silly arguing about stuff they don't understand.
Not much clarity here. Delighted if you could link to something explaining your views on this subject.
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #219  
Old 08-25-2017, 11:30 AM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 386
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by KamaK View Post
Just calling a spade a spade. The thing I have against "Intellectual Property" is that it does not exist. It's entirely made up. It has no basis in law with the exception of recent efforts by lobbyists trying to convince lawmakers to make copyright infringement a criminal offense. Outside of that, it's just a corporate buzzword that is meant to encompass copyright/trademark/patent/trade-secret.

While "government-granted artificial monopoly" may sound derogatory, it really isn't meant to be that way. That's really what copyright is, and part of the problem arguing with the copyright-troll gestapo is that they don't understand copyright law, the origin of the law, the intent of the law, etc. As someone who has earned an early retirement on copyright, it just makes everyone else look silly arguing about stuff they don't understand.
Kamak, as a complete layman in this regards, I can say that I nonetheless understand your distinction between property and copyright/trademark/patent.

Thanks for explaining this. It makes perfect sense and I appreciate your rational approach, I didn't think there was anything derogatory in your explanation.

I think it's only reasonable to concede that you make a very good point. This doesn't mean that I'm compromising my support of musicians rights in any way.
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #220  
Old 08-25-2017, 11:38 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,803
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Well, this is getting to be a waste of time, as you've misunderstood, maybe willfully, to nearly every one of my points. I do need to respond to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
You can also collect royalty income for the duplication and public performance of a creative work. That was the topic of the statement you were responding to. You're a semi-professional musician and you don't know this? I don't accept that. Do you think that's something that shouldn't happen? All your statements denying the actual economic value of-- for example, a song on YouTube-- and denigrating recorded music as "1s and 0s"/"certain arrangements of computer data" point to that.

And I did actually not say anyone is entitled to any payment whatsoever for their work or for value they create. I mean, heaven forfend, right? I said I would not have a problem with them if they did pay a living wage. I don't know why that is such a triggering concept for you to cause you to misread so badly.

I wish you would come out and say what your music professional dream society is. Do you believe copyright law should exist? Should the law be enforced? How about the concept of royalty income-- should that exist? Is there such a thing as creative content? Should creative content monetizable at all in your view?
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #221  
Old 08-25-2017, 12:40 PM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 386
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post

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.
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #222  
Old 08-25-2017, 01:00 PM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 386
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumming sort of person View Post

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumming sort of person View Post

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...


Quote:
Originally Posted by drumming sort of person View Post

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.
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #223  
Old 08-25-2017, 02:21 PM
AzHeat's Avatar
AzHeat AzHeat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 991
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

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 by AzHeat; 08-25-2017 at 02:48 PM.
  #224  
Old 08-25-2017, 05:26 PM
IDDrummer's Avatar
IDDrummer IDDrummer is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 5,101
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
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.
  #225  
Old 08-25-2017, 06:54 PM
KamaK KamaK is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 5,492
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
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.....
  #226  
Old 08-25-2017, 07:00 PM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,803
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #227  
Old 08-25-2017, 07:03 PM
vxla vxla is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 550
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumming sort of person View Post
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.
__________________
Please take a moment for the Bass Drum Pedal Questionnaire
  #228  
Old 08-25-2017, 07:25 PM
KamaK KamaK is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 5,492
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
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.
  #229  
Old 08-25-2017, 08:02 PM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 386
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by KamaK View Post
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.
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #230  
Old 08-25-2017, 08:43 PM
KamaK KamaK is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 5,492
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
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 by KamaK; 08-25-2017 at 09:19 PM.
  #231  
Old 08-25-2017, 10:50 PM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,643
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #232  
Old 08-25-2017, 11:12 PM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 386
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by KamaK View Post

...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...
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #233  
Old 08-25-2017, 11:51 PM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 386
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by KamaK View Post
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...
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #234  
Old 08-26-2017, 12:00 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,643
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #235  
Old 08-26-2017, 12:07 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,803
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #236  
Old 08-26-2017, 12:29 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,643
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
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".

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #237  
Old 08-26-2017, 02:13 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
  #238  
Old 08-26-2017, 02:19 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by vxla View Post
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.
  #239  
Old 08-26-2017, 02:23 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by vxla View Post
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.
  #240  
Old 08-26-2017, 02:50 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,803
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Bernhard Castiglioni's DRUMMERWORLD.com