http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
hmmmmmmm
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
less web-based filesharing, people will figure out a new and clever way around that within like a week tho
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
passenger pigeon
― Number None, Friday, 13 January 2012 02:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
putting CD into manila folder (the "file"), then "sharing" it via US mail
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
mix cds are the new moonshine
― omar little, Friday, 13 January 2012 02:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
sopes vs tacos
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
I tell you what's not going to happen: a pronounced uptick in the sales of recorded media in response to increasing difficulty getting shit for free. This is dumb legislation. I would really, really, really love it if all the people who enjoy Aerosmith music bought the albums. That would be fuckin awesome. It's never going to happen. Trying to legislate a return to the pre-filesharing age just the dumbest.
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
my understanding is that the internet will shut down for like a year while telephone operators reconnect all the cables
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
actually the one thing that will definitely happen is that the MPAA/RIAA will line the campaign chests of any and all politicians who voted for it
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
I despair, i really do
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/25316-record-giants-sue-irish/
― Number None, Friday, 13 January 2012 02:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
but like, for no reason! this is not going to get them extra money! there's just nothing in this for them, and if they manage to shut down any of the mediafires of the world, they'll further alienate producers/engineers/musicians/filmmakers who make DAILY use of these services and are pretty accustomed to having a wide range of options for getting files to people who need to see/hear them
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
just wondering if i wasted my 20s learning a valuable skill like 'youtube surfing,' and if i should be furiously downloading any & all 90s g-funk records from hamburg-based gangster rap blogs now before the fire rains down from the heavens
or if someone will just invent a newer better napster
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ubuweb have been tweeting about how they'll surely go down if it passes. Which might not sound like much, but it's a large proportion of my cultural life down the drain, *and* a bunch of important documents I've used for research.
― emil.y, Friday, 13 January 2012 02:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's not what they're going for though. it's my understanding that they want to rewrite the basic technological infrastructure of the internet. it's like pointing at a house and saying "there's bad cabling that's permitting piracy under the floorboards and in the walls. we need to replace that cabling." to which anybody who is sane would reply "that would require destroying the whole house" to which SOPA supporters would reply "I don't care. there's bad cabling. we need to fix it."
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
it would basically make the internet in the US be similar to internet in China, i.e. censored at the discretion of the US government.
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^ what i'm really worried about
― lame adele rey (some dude), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
on the plus side it would limit access to gucci mane mixtapes, which is a good thing
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
nah, those are free anyway bro
― Number None, Friday, 13 January 2012 02:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
are they doing this becuz i downloaded honkin' on bobo
i never had the guts to tell u i did it aero, i guess i was ashamed of myself
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
this country is turning into soviet russia, which incidentally is where bobo honks you
― lame adele rey (some dude), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:42 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
you're worse than hitler
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
but actually many gucci mixtapes were already removed from datpiff by his label
isnt the diff between us & china that corporations have to ask the government to censor us before we can be censored
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
rip Gucci mane mixtapes
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
focus dayo focus
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
dayo it's almost like whenever we get a glimpse at a thread that might not go straight into this particular ditch you have grab the steering wheel and swerve us into it
― lame adele rey (some dude), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
all roads lead to gucci mane
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
its very important to me that i be able to grab chicken talk from the cloud at any time for the forseeable future
im jus sayin
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 02:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
the only thing available for free download will be the dozen or so new albums by the weeknd coming out every year.
― omar little, Friday, 13 January 2012 03:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Free azealia banks tracks for some; miniature american flags for others
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 03:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― emil.y, Friday, 13 January 2012 02:38 (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
kind of curious about this -- seems like it would mean that the more flagrantly copyright-violating stuff would have to go, sure, but i don't know if that stuff is the same stuff as the stuff that constitutes its value as an archive. in an ideal world it would result in goldsmith spending more time on actual archival and less time tweeting that he's found a file with the complete lacan seminars in e-reader form
― thomp, Friday, 13 January 2012 03:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
(but i'm not entirely sure in what form the thread SOPA entails would manifest -- i was under the impression that copyright owners could order stuff to be taken down already, and i'm not sure what extra weight SOPA adds to this threat)
― thomp, Friday, 13 January 2012 03:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
― thomp, Friday, 13 January 2012 03:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
exactly, the government is powerless against a country full of 14 year old nerds with ridiculous amounts of spare time
― frogbs, Friday, 13 January 2012 03:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
File-sharing will keep happening whatever they do. If they want to stop most of the file-sharing, they need to work together to exploit the medium that consumers have exploited in their absence.
This is a hell of a lot more about control imo – control of so many of the artists who would manage perfectly well without them.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Friday, 13 January 2012 03:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh so what happens if SOPA passes? People will continue to nick stuff off the internet. If that fails, they'll carve new grooves into the internet and share through those. If that fails, they'll set up local gatherings and swap hard drives. I have soooo much more to say on this btw.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Friday, 13 January 2012 03:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean, when Windows XP had that whole "YOUR COPY IS NOT GENUINE" thing that dicked over a bunch of people (regardless of whether or not their copy was legit) it took all of 6 hours before articles went online detailing how to get around it. and Microsoft probably had this technology in development for YEARS.
― frogbs, Friday, 13 January 2012 03:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
But I think the one thing that will happen, whether SOPA passes or not, is that a company with a clue about what drives people to consume (e.g. Apple) will devise a way for people to do so that's so easy, clean and affordable that 99% of people will use it rather than scrape the darknet for a decent copy xp
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Friday, 13 January 2012 03:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Socialist Party of Azania (South Africa)Student Oral Proficiency Assessment Society of Professional Archeologists Synchronous-Orbit Particle Analyzer Standard Operating Procedure Amplified (aviation) Safety Office of Policy Analysis (City of Denver) Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc. (Estes Park, CO, USA) senior officer present afloat (USN) (US DoD) Space-Only Power Allocation Supporters of Performing Arts Selanik Ozel Pedagoji Akademisi Salinas Owners and Pilots Association (Salinas, CA) Southern Oregon Photographic Association (Medford, OR) State of the Province Address (various locations) Stop Online Piracy Act School of Physics and Astronomy (various locations) School of Public Affairs (various locations) South of Pandosy Street (area in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada)
― buzza, Friday, 13 January 2012 03:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Anything with any user-generated content is going to be potentially screwed, surely.http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/
― kinder, Friday, 13 January 2012 03:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
It would give them power that they might not use, but of course that's not the point. They shouldn't have that power in the first place, especially when it's 100% about propping up a industry bloated by a century of physical media and regional distribution.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Friday, 13 January 2012 03:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:27 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
you say this, but in the CD era there was nothing to keep them from pushing the price point up to 20 bucks for a shitty CD
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 05:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
if this happens, I'm going to send every member of the MPAA/RIAA unique snapshots of my dick every day for one year.
they should come around in about a week, tops
― Neanderthal, Friday, 13 January 2012 13:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
A Sheffield student can be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement allegations, a judge has ruled.Richard O'Dwyer, 23, set up the TVShack website which US authorities say hosts links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes.The Sheffield Hallam University student lost his case in a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court.If found guilty in a US court he could face up to five years in jail.Mr O'Dwyer's lawyer, Ben Cooper, indicated during the hearing that he would appeal against the ruling.Mr Cooper said the website did not store copyright material itself and merely directed users to other sites, making it similar to Google.He also argued that his client, who would be the first British citizen to be extradited for such an offence, was being used as a "guinea pig" for copyright law in the US.But District Judge Quentin Purdy ruled the extradition could go ahead.Mr O'Dwyer's mother, Julia O'Dwyer, from Chesterfield, has described the moves by US authorities as "beyond belief" and described Britain's extradition treaty with the United States as "rotten".Speaking before the hearing, Mr O'Dwyer said he was "surprised" when police officers from the UK and America seized equipment at his home in South Yorkshire in November 2010.However, no criminal charges followed from the UK authorities.The case was brought by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned "over $230,000 in advertising revenue" before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name.
Richard O'Dwyer, 23, set up the TVShack website which US authorities say hosts links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes.
The Sheffield Hallam University student lost his case in a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
If found guilty in a US court he could face up to five years in jail.
Mr O'Dwyer's lawyer, Ben Cooper, indicated during the hearing that he would appeal against the ruling.
Mr Cooper said the website did not store copyright material itself and merely directed users to other sites, making it similar to Google.
He also argued that his client, who would be the first British citizen to be extradited for such an offence, was being used as a "guinea pig" for copyright law in the US.
But District Judge Quentin Purdy ruled the extradition could go ahead.
Mr O'Dwyer's mother, Julia O'Dwyer, from Chesterfield, has described the moves by US authorities as "beyond belief" and described Britain's extradition treaty with the United States as "rotten".
Speaking before the hearing, Mr O'Dwyer said he was "surprised" when police officers from the UK and America seized equipment at his home in South Yorkshire in November 2010.
However, no criminal charges followed from the UK authorities.
The case was brought by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned "over $230,000 in advertising revenue" before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name.
― Jimmy Riddle Orchestra (Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker), Friday, 13 January 2012 16:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ubuweb have been tweeting about how they'll surely go down if it passes. Which might not sound like much, but it's a large proportion of my cultural life down the drain, *and* a bunch of important documents I've used for research.― emil.y, Friday, 13 January 2012 02:38 (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalinkkind of curious about this -- seems like it would mean that the more flagrantly copyright-violating stuff would have to go, sure, but i don't know if that stuff is the same stuff as the stuff that constitutes its value as an archive. in an ideal world it would result in goldsmith spending more time on actual archival and less time tweeting that he's found a file with the complete lacan seminars in e-reader form― thomp, Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink(but i'm not entirely sure in what form the thread SOPA entails would manifest -- i was under the impression that copyright owners could order stuff to be taken down already, and i'm not sure what extra weight SOPA adds to this threat)― thomp, Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:12 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
― thomp, Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― thomp, Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:12 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
right now under DMCA, copyright holders can ask for individual infringing things to be removed
under SOPA the way I understand it if there is one infringing file on a large site the entire website could get taken down w/o notice and replaced by
― dmr, Friday, 13 January 2012 18:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
LOL
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Friday, 13 January 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
A Sheffield student can be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement allegations, a judge has ruled.
This elicited a resounding "well DUH" from me.
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 13 January 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ha this is sure to be the PR boost that Big Business needs to keep the plebes from hurling large cans of tomato paste at CEOsk heads...
― incredible shrinking man on euphonium (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Can't they hurl large cans of lima beans? I'm not as partial to lima beans.
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but the market has collapsed now. totally different era & you can't compare imo
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
wouldn't make as big a difference, but i suppose all the digital retailers could start jacking up their prices big time if the illegal alternatives were more strongly enforced
― lame adele rey (some dude), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
eh, if this has any type of noticeable transformative effect (a massive "if"), it is going to do is make people switch from open free-for-all p2p filesharing to closed, private friends-only shared file repositories
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
true. i think it's kind of a shame that there seems to be this pushback of "ahhhh it PROBABLY won't make a difrerence, let's not even bother getting angry about this or figuring out if there's any way to stop it," though.
― lame adele rey (some dude), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
there is a missing "all" in my post but I think my point is still clear enough
I'm not getting angry about this because I don't think it is manifestly wrong? I mean, I am not holding delusions about artists magically making more money out of a more tightly-controlled Internet or anything, but on balance I've never read or seen anything to make me question the idea that unsanctioned free filesharing isn't stealing, and as a result I'm not super bothered when governments try to stick enforceable penalties on it.
Having said that, attempting to push the entire industry back to what it was in the 80s is regressive and not going to happen, but not because of any major uproar; it's because we now have a generation of first world Earth who think music is economically worthless and any market based solely upon it is pretty much doomed for the next 30 years regardless of what shape it takes.
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think its manifestly wrong either wrt to the filesharing issue, but SOPA will be way more far-reaching than just p2p file sharing of music and movies. Thats why I think some dude is otm.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
WAKE UP SHEEPLE WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED
― David Blohard (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
FIRST AMENDMENT BILL HICKS WAS RIIGHT
― David Blohard (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for 10 such infringements within six months.
this is the part that is going to be entirely unenforceable IMO
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
It other words reacting to this with a shrug of the shoulders because "kids will find another way to share music and movies", is a really reductive read of what SOPA is all about and conveniently ignores a lot of the more frightening aspects of the proposed bill.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
like basically this is saying "clicking on a link someone sent you from Youtube can send you to jail" and I don't see how it can be enforceable on any large scale
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, i'm not worried that people won't be able to as easily steal or illegally share music/intellectual property anymore, or that some of the people who've been knowingly breaking the law all along might actually face consequences in greater numbers, i'm worried about all the much more undesirable scenarios outlined upthread that could be made possible by this piece of legislation noone in their right mind thinks the world NEEDS.
― lame adele rey (some dude), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
OTM
― dmr, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh of course this insn't enforceable on any massive level, but imho the frightening part is that it might lead to user-generated sites just shutting down rather than having to deal with all sorts of liability issues.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah most people who are getting angry are doing so because it leaves a *lot* of sites that have nothing to do with filesharing potentially open to being closed down because of the bill being complete overkill. ILX, for example, could easily have one person post one filesharing link one time and get shut down, as I understand it.
― kinder, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Booz & Company on November 16 released a study, funded by Google, finding that almost all of the 200 venture capitalists and angel investors interviewed would stop funding digital media intermediaries if the House bill becomes law.
^^^ this is why this will not happen or be enforced if it does happen
and if it does all happen and ILX gets yanked, you can all stare at the blocked message and say "fuck you DJP, you were so wrong *shakes fist*"
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
dude we all know your real name, we'll find you
― lame adele rey (some dude), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
not if facebook gets shut down
― Sh1pley Gohard (D-40), Friday, 13 January 2012 20:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
everything must go
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Friday, 13 January 2012 21:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm pretty curious about what will happen if SOPA passes. part of my job involves clearing use of academic articles for professors & the guy who oversees copyright stuff is pretty concerned about it
― sean-paul sartre (flopson), Friday, 13 January 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hmmm:
In a move the technology sector will surely see as a victory, a controversial antipiracy bill being debated in Congress will no longer include a provision that would require ISPs to block access to overseas Web sites accused of piracy.Rep. Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), one of the biggest backers of the Stop Online Piracy Act, today said he plans to remove the Domain Name System or DNS-blocking provision."After consultation with industry groups across the country," Smith said in a statement released by his office, "I feel we should remove DNS-blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the [U.S. House Judiciary] Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision."We will continue to look for ways," Smith continued, "to ensure that foreign Web sites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers."A watered down SOPA means Smith improves his chances of getting the bill through Congress. Smith's move comes a day after a backers of a similar bill in the Senate, known as the Protect IP Act, began to backtrack on the issue of DNS.Without the DNS provision, SOPA now looks a great deal more like the OPEN Act, a bill introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), which was created to be an alternative bill to SOPA.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 13 January 2012 23:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Lol it was so obvious that was going to happen
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Saturday, 14 January 2012 00:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
so fucking well put & otm
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 14 January 2012 00:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dunno, as a musician in a pitifully unknown band, I really welcome file-sharing. Anything that gets people to hear what we've done is cool by me. Yeah, I definitely hope that this will result in them either coming to a gig or actually buying the record, but I'm under no illusion that those will be the actual results. I still don't feel like I'm being stolen from, though.
― emil.y, Saturday, 14 January 2012 01:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I haven't even read this yet, but here's what the White House has to say.
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 14 January 2012 13:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obama sez I'm president and I ain't payin $12 to hear Lil Wayne rhyme "Machiavelli" with "jelly"
― Neanderthal, Saturday, 14 January 2012 15:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mostly it's the tying in with HOMELAND SECURITY that is upsetting to me.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 14 January 2012 19:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Why is that upsetting?
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Saturday, 14 January 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I like that the white house's statement tries to get beyond the simplistic x vs. y argument. Its like theyre telling us to grow the fuck up lol
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Saturday, 14 January 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol yeah it's like they're on a whole different level from us dumbasses. hard to stand in the glare of their wisdom
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 14 January 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol
― rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Saturday, 14 January 2012 22:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
sad lol
it's because we now have a generation of first world Earth who think music is economically worthless
I agree 100%; also, the industry had the power to take control of this in the fallout of Napster and didn't. Here we are more than 10 years later and the industry is still trying to shut everything down rather than just make content available. If it weren't so hellbent on retrofitting its antique structure into the 21st century we would already be well on the way to a non-SOPA solution imo.
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 January 2012 22:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
by 'take control' I mean sell its content via the new medium instead of being Victorian-era dicks
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 January 2012 22:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, January 14, 2012 4:43 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
lol you cant even praise the tone of a letter ?
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Saturday, 14 January 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
frankly i think they have a point. it would be nice if ppl didn't just rally to protect their free mp3s, but rallied around coming up w/ solutions for overseas piracy. i'd think you'd agree with that
I wouldn't, and I'm presumably one of the "victims."
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 14 January 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
solution for overseas piracy = destroy all boats
― Neanderthal, Saturday, 14 January 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
the industry had the power to take control of this in the fallout of Napster and didn't. Here we are more than 10 years later and the industry is still trying to shut everything down rather than just make content available. If it weren't so hellbent on retrofitting its antique structure into the 21st century we would already be well on the way to a non-SOPA solution imo.
this is what "the adult in the room" would actually say btw
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 14 January 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
otm
― Neanderthal, Saturday, 14 January 2012 23:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know whether that's a compliment or a zing
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 January 2012 23:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
and now, a lol break
complete with 'you are hurting the artists'
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 January 2012 23:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
One day all of the artists will just decide not show up to work and stop making art and then we'll be sorry!
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 15 January 2012 00:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Neanderthal, zondag 15 januari 2012 0:05 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
well the lulzboat, surely
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Sunday, 15 January 2012 00:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, January 14, 2012 5:51 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
completely disagree. didnt you just otm rudolphus tarantino, who said exactly what i did?
you're confusing 'music' with 'piracy.' if we can all get free films from overseas it essentially guts an industry that relies on a lot more investment. The tipping point for films hasn't been reached the way it has w/ music but I think it's just as reasonable (and obviously w/ services like Netflix studios are hoping to head off the worst of it better than the music industry did)
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Sunday, 15 January 2012 09:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry for using djp's real name, i wasnt thinking. a mod can edit that
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Sunday, 15 January 2012 09:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
shit wasn't even heated
― little blue souvenir (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 15 January 2012 10:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
just make content available.
what the fuck does this even mean?
― flopson, Sunday, 15 January 2012 21:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol @ rudolphus tarantino
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Sunday, 15 January 2012 21:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
SOPA dead, PIPA still in progress. Wikipedia's blackout day still going ahead iirc.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 16 January 2012 20:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 05:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
can I just point out that when I said "this isn't going to happen", I was OTM
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 16:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
and i'm perfectly happy to say you were right!
― some dude, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe next I'll play the lottery, clearly the world is temporarily bending to my will
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
I always liked Canada's solution of accepting that piracy will occur but just charging an extra tax on CD-Rs and CD burners that goes to the industry.
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's what they do in the US too
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean i totally agree with the "industry should have done something in 2000 instead of just pretending the internet would go away" comments.
the thing that struck me about sites like oink is that cost aside they were so much easier and better than any legal alternative. I mean I was one of those guys who would pay $30-40 to import discs or buy OOP stuff on eBay (of which the industry sees not one dime) and the whole time I was just thinking "I would definitely pay for this service if I could!" Look at what Nintendo has done with the "virtual console", now they're making tons of money with no effort by just screwing over the resellers, which is the way it ought to be.
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
i was talking to a guy recently who produced a Japanese band and was learning about the whole music/entertainment industry over there and how generally just the whole idea of music piracy never caught on over there that much and people are happy to pay for music just like they always have, makes me feel like things like Napster kind of sensationalizing the whole phenomenon and getting people excited about the act of 'stealing' music is really how we got where we are and really could've gone down much differently
― the name of a bar in Portland where I had a dark night of the soul (some dude), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
The whole "if only the music industry had figured out a way to charge me money for digital files earlier I wouldn't want them for free" argument strikes me as JUST A BIT po faced.
― extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
there should just be one private tracker w/ all the music in the world
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not saying THAT per se, hurting, just that cultural attitudes and the sequence of certain events contributed to the current situation much more than just "once music could be free people only wanted it for free, end of story"
― the name of a bar in Portland where I had a dark night of the soul (some dude), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dont think the attitude shifted so much toward "I want everything to be free" as it did "I want everything to be available".
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean, mp3s don't really have any value on their own so the whole issue gets complex. For example, I think it's fair to say that a person who gets three new albums in a month should pay $10 a piece for them, but if someone downloads a thousand albums every month it's not really fair to say that they owe $10,000 monthly or that he's getting $10k worth of "value" from those mp3s.
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
it has never mattered how much 'value' someone actually gets out of ownership of an object. that's not how our society works.
― the name of a bar in Portland where I had a dark night of the soul (some dude), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
So if I decide I want to eat a thousand loaves of bread per month instead of two or three, I should only have to pay for three because I'm more efficient at getting "value" out of my bread?
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean horrible analogy aside, I don't think consuming anything in bulk means you shouldn't have to pay per unit. Sure, economies of scale to buy things in bulk but music doesn't work that way unless you are going to download four thousand copies of the same Max B mixtape.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
― frogbs, Tuesday, January 17, 2012 11:44 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
why on earth would you think this was fair to say
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
i've seen some right-on/cynical commentary putting the backlash against SOPA in the context of the non-backlash against the PATRIOT re-up, detention bills, etc.
lolcats have a bigger constituency that 'terrorists' i guess...
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
its a totally different situation because someone still has to make the bread. you don't have to make copies of an album. the analogies to physical materials don't work on the same level. would an artist prefer to have someone buy one song for $5 but not buy anything else, or an entire album for $10?
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
what do you mean?
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
of course the price-per-unit of almost anything drops when a consumer gets that item in larger quantities. that has little to do with how or how much they use it, though, or how much effort it takes to produce the item.
― the name of a bar in Portland where I had a dark night of the soul (some dude), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
do you think mp3s are like unicorns, with no actual physical existence or something
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
they are!
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
when you publish Frogbsonomics, I'm going to buy every copy (for the price of five copies) and light them all on fire
― the name of a bar in Portland where I had a dark night of the soul (some dude), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
you don't have to make copies of an album.
but you did a few years ago! until perfect cd copying and then perfect digital replication and storage hit dirt-cheap consumer levels. but the costs to produce/market/promote the product are still budgeted for a hard-copy world. that's the whole problem.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
also, electronic files ARE a copy of the album
the fact that it's effortless to copy and doesn't take up room on a bookshelf doesn't mean that you haven't made a copy and it isn't taking up actual space on your hard drive
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
well finding 3 megabyes of storage space is not that expensive in 2012
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
bytes
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
it does when the item is essentially free for the seller! when you sell a loaf of bread, you no longer have the loaf of bread. you cannot sell it any longer. that's why I don't think the economics should work the same, or why the public views it the same way. I think most people rationalize piracy with "I wouldn't have bought that anyway, so nobody gets hurt" which is a much more "valid" rationalization than any other kind of stealing
pretty much
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
the correct analogy here is photocopying a textbook btw
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
you can't buy "every" copy because I'm talking about infinitely replicable nonphysical objects!
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha the textbook market is even more fucked up than the music one
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, I know!
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
the news business is a good analogy. it's almost exactly the same problem i think.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I agree w/ that
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
sadly, you don't have millions of kids staring longingly at CSPAN going "someday I'm gonna write a paper about this $$$$$$$"
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
The physical cost of CDs and their packaging was always a relatively small part of the overall cost of bringing a record to market.
― extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
― frogbs, Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:07 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
ok then i'll pee on your kindle, does that work
― the name of a bar in Portland where I had a dark night of the soul (some dude), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
And it's also not where most of the value was, obviously. People didn't pay for the shiny plastic discs with pretty pictures, they payed for the music.
― extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's basically the problem of finding a way to price + get people to pay for information when distribution costs for information are trending towards zero and the total quantity of information is higher than ever.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
distribution is a pretty big cost too. going from plant to large distributor to small distrubutor to record store to consumer involves markups at each level, which isnt really necessary anymore
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also there's the whole argument that the production costs of music are going down too, which is sort of true. But most people still want expensively-produced, expensively mass-marketed music, contrary to what some guy recording into a firepod in his underwear might want to believe.
― extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
dude should really take the firepod out of his underwear
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
it doesn't matter what people want if the market can't support it in the long-term. there's no inherent human need for expensively-produced music.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh so what happens if SOPA passes? People will continue to nick stuff off the internet. If that fails, they'll carve new grooves into the internet and share through those. If that fails, they'll set up local gatherings and swap hard drives. I have soooo much more to say on this btw.― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:23 PM (5 days ago)
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:23 PM (5 days ago)
I asked this on another thread, but any guesses as to how many bytes the entire Impulse and Blue Note catalogues would take up?
You can buy 1 Terabyte USB drives now. Storage is getting cheaper every day....
― m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
man i really hope this legislation and its attendant debate die off or take a very different shape very soon just because i don't want to see "Sh1pley Gohard" at the top of new answers for the next 6 months
― the name of a bar in Portland where I had a dark night of the soul (some dude), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
― extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:10 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i know what you mean but in a literal sense this is backwards
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
exactly, which is why I think taxing the internet itself is probably a more sensible way to go.
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
you're pretty good at taxing ilx, maybe they can put you in charge of the rest of the internet too
― the name of a bar in Portland where I had a dark night of the soul (some dude), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
right, plus we're headed toward a future where things are based on "cloud" technology and storage is essentially infinite.
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha daaamn
xp
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
everyone who uses the internet pays a tax? levied by whom? and given to the government? who disburses it to... content producers/copyright holders? ASCAP? man, what could go wrong?
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
assuming all those entities weren't corrupt as hell, it could work
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well yeah, lets just ignore those pesky realities.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
that strategy's worked pretty well for the music business
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think the idea itself is corrupt as hell. just to have an email account and surf the web, my mom has to pay a tax that gets directed to the bronfman family, just because napster exists?
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
re: the "Canadian solution", the tax gets distributed according to who has the most sales. This sucks. Every blank disc you buy, you are subsidising Nickelback. Most sales does not necessarily equal most pirated. Also, fuck you Canadian government for charging artists who buy blank media in order to duplicate and distribute their OWN music.
― m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
she has to pay taxes for lots of other things that don't benefit her goole. including some art programs.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol Nickelback's continued existence now makes sense
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
my mom has gone to see every federally funded art object within 750 miles of her doorstep
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't nec. think it should be levied on internet users but I do think that ultimately national funding for art is prob gonna be the long-long-term answer to 'how do we pay artists' / 'are there benefits to having a large art economy that don't get reflected w/ free market pricing'
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, and I have to fund my local school's music program even though I don't have kids. I mean I get this is what everybody is going to say, but the amount of people who actually just use the internet to surf the web and get email is getting pretty low isn't it? Even my grandma is obsessed with YouTube these days.
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Sorry we went out of business and lost all your stuff forever when our servers shut down, sucks to be you!"
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I'm more concerned about my apt burning down than amazon servers suddenly disappearing
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
everytime someone downloads an album the government should charge nickelback a dollar.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Even my grandma is obsessed with YouTube these days.
Yes but watching a couple YouTube videos a week is not at all similar to your 10,000 album downloader.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
but the alternative to this is...the artists with the most sales make the most money??
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
seems like there's an obvious difference between paying the local district for someone else's schooling and paying license holders (or supposedly fairly-distributing agencies thereof) for someone else's presumed piracy
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's what you get for living in those urban tenements you love so much xxxxp
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
xxp pardon me if I'm misunderstading this but isn't SOPA kind of suggesting otherwise?
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, the first model is worse and has led to generations of shitty school systems xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
well ok, but so what? one is a funding mechanism for a public good, the other is organized restitution for a crime being committed, by someone, somewhere...
our business is way off, must be all those downloaders!!! i've never seen numbers that are convincing about this, or even definitive.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
music should be a public good and should be funded as one!
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
jesus even i don't agree with that.
i liked it better when it was a corrupt market run by the mob tbf.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah so did lots of people but technology has made that p. impossible in the long-term
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
and tbh I think there are industries that have been or will be even more fucked than the music biz by the same 'information distribution costs approach zero' problem. newspaper writers can't go on tour.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can't wait until the technology that allows me to steal free LED TVs from the store, then the manufacturers will just have to "adapt".
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
that technology exists
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
no u c there is technology that will make LED TV's not particularly useful. you will be able to get one for free eventually, because nobody will want them.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
Is there technology to prevent iatee double posts? Such a waste of resources.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
all my posts deserve multiple readings tbh
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
hollywood and big music are probably all for this bill, no? they can go after asian and russian pirates via the government. if i'm reading wikipedia correctly...
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
c'mon, this isn't that hard
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
now asia THERE is where you see some bigtime theft. actual real theft and not virtual theft. for ever. for decades. probably billions of dollars worth. bootleg dvd mania. they didn't need the internet to do that.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
I guess my question for people who are on the other side of this debate is 'what's the alternative to a macro-level tax / some sorta national spotifyish system?' $1 a song is as arbitrary as $15 a CD and has no relation to the costs of production or the demand for the music.
again I think it's better to think of what's happening to the music industry as on the first wave of what will happen to lots of people who work in the information economy.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well I guess thats the tough part for me because I simply DON'T have a better solution, but I'd love for one that falls somewhere between a national tax and a system that takes money away from the content creators.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
is that good? no. but I don't think the best way to ensure people get paid is through creating artificial scarcity.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp to myself
labels could be trying to set up competitors to itunes. you can find ways to technologically brake piracy instead of getting the law on your side and hating apple (all the industry seems to be able to imagine doing)
the other route is to try to sell those things that people want to have that are unreproducible, and have download codes attached. all the merch and swag sort of becomes the 'album' in this model
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think those are long-term solutions
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
the question is, what do the artists want?
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
here's another one: music follows classical and jazz and becomes a niche thing supported by enthusiasts and a few gov't/ngo grant institutions and most other people quit giving a shit unless its on tv
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
the only solution for labels and artists are well-organized subscription services like itunes. a one-stop shop for people. itunes makes money, right? you have to corral people. left to their own devices, they'll just surf around and nab things where they can for free.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
seems more realistic!
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, people will suddenly stop liking music. huh?
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, the whole "less and less people care about music because look at the numbers" argument is weird to me. billions of people will always listen to music and lots of it, whether or not it remains a billion dollar industry.
― some dude, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
people suddenly stopped going to the movies 5x a week, things do change
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
how much did people love music before the radio era of the 30s? or the single era of the 50s or album era of the 60s? none of this has ever been about what is natural or about what people like
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean, it's sorta like saying people don't care about news because newspapers are going out of business. (there might even be some truth in that, but) the real problem is a lack of serious BBC-equivalents here. there's no reason why the value of music or news should be directly reflected in their free market profits and in the internet age that truth is making itself more and more clear.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think in general "time spent listening to stuff" and "time spent watching stuff" has been going up every year. it's not like the technology is just going to go away. if they had iPods in the 30's I'm sure they would have been huge!
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
labels could be trying to set up competitors to itunes.
Prior to iTunes, the labels tried this, and failed miserably (and somewhat hilariously), mainly due to the many restrictions on the files you downloaded -- couldn't burn them to a CD, proprietary file types, could only listen x number of days.
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, trying to approach your customer with an attitude beyond paranoia and hatred is a good start
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
And movie theaters suddenly started showing commercials for 15 minutes before the movie starts.
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
mighta mattered 15 years ago
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
music is a huge and inseperable part of daily life for most people on earth and always has been and always will be, more than football, more than video games, more than whatever form of entertainment is more lucrative than music at this particular point in history. the advent of recording music and different changes in culture and technology have big effects on HOW it's a part of their life but i don't feel like 10% or 30% of all people have in the past couple decades gone "eh, music, i've had my fill of that, not my thing."
― some dude, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
― scott seward, Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:02 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
What makes this "real theft" vs "virtual theft"? They're not selling stolen DVDs, they're making unauthorized copies of DVDs. It might not be analogous to illegally downloading, but it's probably analogous to those russian mp3 sites that charge like $3/album for pirated music.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was going to say, about the only thing I can think of more prevalent on Earth than music is speech
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
which is exactly why it's so hard to price + make money off and will continue to be
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, just like phone companies has never found a way to profit off of peoples' desire to talk to each other
― some dude, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
al I will let you ponder this for a while and come up w/ some reasons why they are different
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
how about you take that time to think about why it makes no sense to say that things that are hugely prevalent in daily life are difficult to profit off of
― some dude, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
it is difficult to measure and capture the true economic value of things that are 1. available freely on some level and 2. are hugely prevalent. w/ music not only are those two things true, they are both increasingly true. what's wrong with that statement?
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think bottled water is the classic example people tend to use in this situation but there are about a dozen others if that doesn't fit the bill
― some dude, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
"What makes this "real theft" vs "virtual theft"?"
oh yeah i just meant concrete objects like dvds and cds and non-concrete objects like mp3s. i don't consider mp3s real things.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't consider mp3s real things.
this is 99% of the problem facing the music industry right now
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
bottled water = paying $30 for a tshirt or picture book just to get the music attached
come on that totally works
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
the bottled water industry created a new need for 'water in bottles'. people consider 'water in bottles' to be something different from 'tap water not in bottles'. if the music industry wants to create a physical product w/ limited availablity and sell it as something 'different' from other music then yes, they can make bottled water money. you can argue this is already what the market looks like.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:43 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
This argument seems self-justifying though. All this boils down to is, "people don't want to pay for mp3s because they can get the exact same thing for free" -- which is not really something anyone here is arguing with.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
― scott seward, Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:41 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Yeah but the concrete objects themselves aren't being "stolen." The bootleggers are the ones making the objects.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
seward is the one guy who DOES believe in unicorns but not mp3s
― some dude, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
at least until "the era of the MagicJack"
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
people shouldn't want to pay $1 for an mp3 because that's not the value of a song for yr average consumer in 2012. and that wouldn't be for most music, even in a world where straight piracy had been 100% cracked down on. the total quantity of music continues to increase and it costs less and less to distribute it. it's p much impossible to figure out 'the value of one song' in this situation, but we prob can have a debate on how much we value music as a society and how much we think should be made and how a gov't could best subsidize the industry.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
i see a difference between making thousands of physical copies of stolen material, like a fake handbag or a dvd, and an MP3. i can't help it. maybe its just too soon. an MP3 is basically a new product. like a record was a hundred years ago. people have to get used to the idea that something is worth paying for.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
when iTunes introduced the 99 cent song pricing point (like, what, 7 years ago?) it was looked at as a pretty good deal, especially since it was so impossible to buy most songs as a single serving apart from parent albums before that. a lot has changed about the perception of that price since then (and of course the price for some songs went up a bit), but i really think it's more about perception than anything inherent about the 'value' of that song/file or the strength of the dollar or whatever.
― some dude, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
perception and value aren't different things!
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
the economics of pricing music have always been weird. I remember reading that all the goofy "subsections" in the tracklisting of In the Court of the Crimson King were done just to get more royalties as apparently you don't get much for writing "only 5 songs". iTunes and Amazon will still price an hour-long, 7-track album at $6.93 and a half-half, 10-track one at $9.90
i liked the allofmp3 system of just paying per megabyte
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
then again if you start charging for albums based on length then everything will be like the 90's R. Kelly era where every release is 78-79 minutes long.
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
especially since it was so impossible to buy most songs as a single serving apart from parent albums before that.
That's pretty much where the music industry started digging its own grave. Majors stopped manufacturing/selling singles in the 90s, so you had to buy an $18 CD for the one song you wanted. File sharing started as "I just want this one song" rather than "I want artists' entire discographies."
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
it still makes me mad! i loved buying singles. i bought them all the time. i've never bought an MP3 single.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
i still understand why they had to do it. you can't charge $3.99 for a half hour cd single and $18.99 for a half hour album. it looked bad.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, I used to buy singles too. I think I have a few CD singles that are longer than some albums (Yo La Tengo's "Upside-Down" springs to mind -- one of its "b-sides" is 24 minutes long).
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
how come the price of gas suddenly goes up and then never comes down they should do that with mp3s
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
what would have happened if the major labels had cut their advertising budgets by half and started putting out five dollar CDs? i would own a LOT of CDs if they had done that.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Speaking of gas, lets remember that iatee is in favor of jailing all automobile owners rather than actually working towards an effective topdown solution that reverses decades of planning America around those very same automobiles, so grain of salt in all.
In other words, like the car argument we all come from the same place but iatee takes a really different route than everyone else.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
ya and a train takes me there
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Starting in the late 80s, it cost less to manufacture a CD than an LP, but CDs were sold at nearly double the price of LPs. Since sales kept rising (more people buying more affordable CD players, yuppies replacing their LPs with CDs), they didn't see any reason to lower prices. At one point, majors tried to mount a campaign against used CD stores, but nothing really came of it, and sales were still healthy, so why bother?
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
i wonder if the cd was to the music industry what the suv was to the car industry
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've never bought a mp3 and I've had an itunes card that was a gift for awhile now. I don't know what to do it with. I see mp3s as a transitional copy of music. If someone gives me mp3s of a record, I'm either going to seek the actual record out or I will eventually discard the mp3s. Even the mps I have on my computer are transitional and never stay for more than a year. But I'm guilty of what this bill is aimed at. I copy my records and share them with people. I've never thought that I am stealing, maybe I am. But I've never thought that owning a mp3 is really "owning" anything. But I feel like my records are mine.
― JacobSanders, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
was there a time when they were called compact disks instead of compact discs, or is that life in hell comic just wrong?
― silverfish, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
if it gets too risky for you guys to download files cuz of a new law or something i can hook you up. come by any time. ilxor discount.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
s'opa
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hey scott can I send you a wish list?
― JacobSanders, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
I seem to remember the "disk" spelling being part of NYTimes style throughout the 80s and into the early 90s. And for a brief period, the Times was referring to them as "compact disk albums."
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm envisioning a Variety headline: SONY SOUR AS SCOTUS SCUTTLES SOPA!
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, jacob, sure, why not, you never know......................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_disc
Disk and disc are the two alternative spellings of the descriptive word for things of a generally thin and circular geometry. These variations are due to the way in which the words originated. The discussion here somewhat focuses on Disk storage as an Electronic media. Generally in Computer terminology, disk refers to Magnetic storage while disc refers to Optical storage.
omg i had completely internalized this distinction w/ realizing it
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
we takin' over
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
w/out realizing i mean obv
"hard disk" and "compact disc" look and feel completely natural. "hard disc" and "compact disk", not.
wake up sheeple
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Taxing the internet is pretty much the opposite of commerce. It's a solution proposed by people who imo don't understand what encourages content production and distribution – at its distant logical conclusion (i.e. a dystopian world in which all content is free and everyone 'subscribes' to everything via an internet tax) what you're doing is basically just handing a load of people some money to vaguely make some stuff, with no financial incentive for that stuff to be good. At least with subscription television (the closest analogue I can come up with) there is some incentive to provide quality/value so that people keep subscribing. All this is in my opinion, in my opinion, in my opinion.
Also in my opinion, piracy absolutely needs to be reigned in, but there's no getting rid of piracy altogether. That has never been possible and it never will be. I think the content industries know that, but it's a convenient scapegoat for them to take to govts worldwide in order to get the SOPA-like protectionism that they will actually need if they want to continue operating for another n decades in their current bloated forms, maintaining artificial scarcity, geoblocking the world &c.
btw DJP's photocopying (and therefore scanning) analogy is u+k, principally imo because it indicates that people will always pay handsomely for the same content if it's of higher quality and easier to obtain. The whole 'you can't compete with free' argument is bullshit.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
"financial incentive" does not equal "good music"
― m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
people will always pay handsomely for the same content if it's of higher quality and easier to obtain
pretty sure the last decade does not bear this out wtf
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
ie MP3s sound like shit
not anymore!
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 09:42 (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
256 kbps one-click iTunes download is superior to a set of 96 kbps files you found on the third torrent site you tried that day
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
ideally the music downloaded or "subscribed to" would be tracked and money paid out accordingly
obviously this is not going to happen for a very long time given how much legislation is in place already, but it's not like I'm suggesting we give the big three several million in tax money and tell them to find another Justin Bieber
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
Digital file music actually added a lot of value compared to what came before! I mean you have shuffle, you have cloud storage, streaming through services like spotify, you can play them on really tiny players that don't skip if you jump up and down a lot, etc.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:52 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
sure and wines taste different lol
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's pretty much where the music industry started digging its own grave
Nah, the industry started digging its own grave when CDs replaced LPs. Digital copies of anything = easy to copy and distribute for free.
― ban this sick stunt (anagram), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
At least with subscription television (the closest analogue I can come up with) there is some incentive to provide quality/value so that people keep subscribing. All this is in my opinion, in my opinion, in my opinion.
i think the incentive for cable tv channels is "pls god let us be put into a basic package with espn" :/
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 22:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
i honestly can't fathom why ppl still buy digital music from itunes instead of amazon
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nah, the industry started digging its own grave when CDs replaced LPs. Digital copies of anything = easy to copy and distribute for free.yeah, but no one that i know of anticipated the present situation at the time, so it's hard to blame it on poor decisions made by the industry (rather than the simple progress of technology). and i strongly doubt that keeping the single alive would have changed much about where we're at right now.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
i guess that's becoming my signature
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, but no one that i know of anticipated the present situation at the time
usenet groups amirite
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
sometimes there will be obscure stuff that's not on amazon, but besides that I totally agree. things you buy for 99 cents should not become a hassle because you might "mis-use" them
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
they were first in the crosshairs because of data footprint, albums/mp3s are so small...then it happened to movies...video games might stay ahead of the curve because data keeps increasing with each generation, it used to be crazy to fill up a double-density DVD now naughty dog struggles to fit uncharted on a blu-ray
but there was nothing they could have done, piracy was too easy
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
there was nothing they could have done
One thing they could have done was to not go out of their way to make it harder for people to buy and use content
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
I definitely don't think keeping the single alive would have prevented the rise of file sharing, but it might have slowed down certain tendencies. Also, in addition to keeping singles around, labels still would have had to seriously lower prices on CDs, and since they were making insane profits on this no-singles/$18 CDs business model, majors saw no reason to mess with it.
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp This shit was the tipping point imo
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean i guess there were things that could have slowed the decline, but everyone's a fuckin' genius now but you must admit it would have been hard to understand what was going on when the ground was moving so quickly under your feet
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
you must admit it would have been hard to understand what was going on when the ground was moving so quickly under your feet
Definitely, although there was a time (Napster stands out imo) when it was pretty gd obvious that people wanted to download stuff, and to have some control of what they were downloading. The Copy Control image I posted above is indicative of just how desperate the big music labels were to control people's use of music, and Copy Control happened years after the Napster thing.
(For those who don't know, Copy Control stopped you ripping the CD you paid for. The notion that you were purchasing one licence for use in only a CD player didn't wash.)
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, but no one that i know of anticipated the present situation at the time, so it's hard to blame it on poor decisions made by the industry (rather than the simple progress of technology). and i strongly doubt that keeping the single alive would have changed much about where we're at right now.
I might be overstating this but i think in general this is the result of an industry that's been fucking over its customers for the last 40 years, trying to get people to buy the same albums over and over, promising price drops that never came, limiting the consumer's options whenever possible, introducing ridiculous stuff like "copy protection" to dick over people who tried to do things legally, attempting to bankrupt and ruin the lives of college students and single mothers for downloading songs that everyone's heard on classic rock radio for the last 30 years - I mean they are truly one of the most unlikeable industries around (even the artists say so!), and I find I'm way, way, way more likely to buy stuff when it's directly from the artist or a small label
― frogbs, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Music consumers are the biggest whiners on the planet imo
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
I remember how great Napster was because the interface was so much easier to navigate than any other option at that point. I remember telling my roommate that even if I had to pay a quarter for a song I would have happily done so just to have to much music at my fingertips, instantly. My argument was based on people happily paying that much a jukebox for just on play!
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think in general this is the result of an industry that's been fucking over its customers for the last 40 years <...> limiting the consumer's options whenever possible
Additionally (it's sometimes tricky for Americans in particular to understand this), piracy is huge in many parts of the first world (particularly Australia) because of region lockout. One example: something comes out in the US, it's hyped to death on social media, Australians want to pay for it, they're told they're arbitrarily not allowed to (sometimes for months, sometimes never), they find a way to get it instantly, and money that could have changed hands never does. I'm not promoting any behaviour here, just pointing out that it happens, and it happens to service the redundant bloat of very old industries.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
even if I had to pay a quarter for a song I would have happily done so just to have to much music at my fingertips, instantly. My argument was based on people happily paying that much a jukebox for just on play!
also $5 ring tones
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
and napster had the built in player which was great for comps light on ram despite being 3 months old and cost a fortune.
― Jimmy Riddle Orchestra (Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
i guess i question the fact that people "wanted" to pay for something once they could get it free and w/o consequence very quickly and easily
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah that is not a "fact". people want shit for free.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
again I don't think 'taxing the internet' is the best way to go about this, but I'd like to hear an explanation for why the profit motive is the only way to for a society to create great art.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
I guess I have to admit that I've at times made similar rationalizations for streaming sports ("Cable is too expensive and they're operating on an antiquated model! Plus they're choking the internet!") although there I'm REALLY getting inferior quality. Still, I could just maybe see NBA as being a tipping point for me getting cable if I really had no other way to watch. Maybe. I'd also probably just pay for that NBA leaguepass thing if it didn't have so many blackouts of the games I'd most want to watch, but that's not one single company's fault so much as the result of a tangled web of rights.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
because steve jobs! rip xp
― ah, how quaint (Matt P), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
do we need a way to ensure that people can be artists full-time? absolutely. did paul mccartney write 'yesterday' because he wanted to be a billionaire? I don't think so.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
No, he wrote "Maybe I'm Amazed" to be a billionaire. He wzs just another lowly millionaire before that.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:39 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I don't think it is at all, I just think you need an economically viable model, be it patronage, government support, private industry or whatever. I do see a downside to govt support vs private industry though, which is that, ironically, I think you're going to get more support for radical or challenging projects from a private model. The government would be under too much pressure to only support tame, centrist tastes.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha for reasons i don't understand myself my most arch-libertarian beliefs exist in the zone of arts. do you want bureaucrats in washington deciding which records you get to hear?!?!?!
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
But he did invest in music publishing and, as a result, was the only Beatle to never come close to bankruptcy.
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
hmm what do you guys think about pbs?
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
npr?
haha I mean I guess those are bad examples w/r/t boring or not but they're competently run despite 'bureaucrats in washington'
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it would be really sad if most art was like PBS and NPR
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
antiques roadshow is the fuckin' bomb imo
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
well come up w/ a better feasible model for what the music economy should look like 20 years from now. "I'm against piracy" doesn't solve any problems.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
i see your point, but those are single actors in a still-commercial space, and who have been forced to accept their highly politicized nature from the attacks leveled at them.
you seem to be arguing for a 'single payer' model for music, which is a whole other order of difference. right?
(there is a non-classical npr music station here and i basically hate it fyi)
xps 2 iatee
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
and really it's not like I'm for creating one-government-radio-station, I'm for the gov't giving living wages to artists who want to create art. this stuff happens in more enlightened countries already!
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 10:39 (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I didn't say it is. The big companies that provide content will not have any incentive to find and fund good content if all the revenue is just coming in via a tax. Good art will always happen obviously.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
on the macro level, yeah basically
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
well come up w/ a better feasible model for what the music economy should look like 20 years from now
gonna look like this
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
i saw a dutch band open for low once. they were on a grant. they sucked super bad.
data point of one and all.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
actually lol they didn't open for low now that i think, they opened for a friend's band. iirc.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
big companies don't need to provide content! and making music w/ expensive production costs might not be financially feasible in the long-term. that sucks but there are also things about this that don't suck, like having all music in world history available to you. certain costs of production will go down.
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
The most underrated thing about the record label model of doing business - whether big label or moderate-sized indie -- is the advance. The advance is basically music startup capital -- it's one of the only things that enables a non rich person to finally quit that day job and go for it full time. I think this kind of full-time commitment makes for much better music, and I think it's a shame that fewer artists are getting a shot at making music this way. I've seen a lot of people who I thought were quite talented eventually just peter out because it wasn't really possible to make the transition to the kind of heavy practicing, touring, writing and recording you usually need to break through to an audience. There's no way to say for sure whether they would have done any better in the old model, but I don't think the current DIY model is all it's cracked up to be.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
well that's the single easiest aspect to emulate
― iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sure, but however you slice it, less money spent on recorded music = smaller pie from which to give advances.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
big companies don't need to provide content!
But they want to, because that gives them complete control over something. Even when they sign deals with external production houses etc., they have to compete with other big companies in order to secure those deals.
If a tax on all content were introduced and all content were free (remember this is a hypothetical extension of a theoretical possibility), they would stop producing decent content because there would be no need. It wouldn't matter how crap it was, as long as it was cheap and they weren't arousing sufficient suspicion to have the tax taken away. In Australia, our free-to-air television networks are required by law to produce a set percentage of local content every year, so they produce the shittiest, least risky rubbish you could possibly imagine.
and making music w/ expensive production costs might not be financially feasible in the long-term
Some of the best music (and television, and cinema, and writing) happens on a shoe-string budget. But, as Hurting said, those involved on shoe-string productions are only making do unless their art is commercially successful.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean I know you already know that but
again...I'm for ensuring living wages for artists so they don't have to worry about commercial viability. and again...I'm not sure why big music companies even need to exist?
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
SOPA is what happens when they try to remain in existence.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
like, avatar was commercially successful and I guess it's cool that movies like that can still earn back their insane investments. would we have more great movies if we gave 20 great directors 1/4 a billion dollars to play with? probably! and on some level it is a shame we cannot give everyone 1/4 billion dollars to make a movie w/. and eventually we prob can't even do that w/ the james camerons.
like, perhaps today's brian wilson wants to make today's good vibrations and cannot afford to do so because of today's music economy, and we're all being deprived of an imaginary piece of genius. that sucks! but there are lots of things that don't suck, like the fact that some 12 year old kid w/ spotify and youtube has more access to the history of music than most of us coulda dreamt of at that age.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
please no more attempts to make good vibrations. can we pay people to not make music like brian wilson?
― scott seward, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
ps I'm not saying avatar was great I didn't see avatar.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
perhaps today's brian wilson wants to make today's good vibrations and cannot afford to do so because of today's music economy, and we're all being deprived of an imaginary piece of genius. that sucks!
otoh today's brian wilson probably has garage band and a bandcamp page so
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean where people in the '60s had to hire a studio and battle expensive and ever-failing equipment, today p much every middle-class kid can do what they like at home and at a fraction of the price.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
and that's why today's records sound so wonderful
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
immaculate production values aren't a basic human right
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol m@tt
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
instead of one brian wilson we can get 20 mike loves
― buzza, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
can we be shown weirdo + mike loves
― virtual gape machine (electricsound), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk, mike love vs. brian wilson which one of them was pushing the profit motive
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
the idea that the mid-20th century american capitalist market was and always will be the best way for great art to develop seems weird to me
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
idea that "great art" depends on any particular system is ridiculous. it doesn't even depend on monetary reward, and as autumn almanac said, it'll always happen. that's a non-issue.
thing is, this doesn't apply only to music. it applies to any form of art or information that can be digitized. if big business and government can't figure out a good way to protect the profits made from the sale music, movies, TV shows and books, then the internet will eventually be taxed in order to compensate for lost revenue and monitored/restricted in order to limit the possibility of piracy. seems inevitable to me.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 01:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
like, wearing a tinfoil hat, you could view the emergence of digital media as a preemptive strike against internet freedom
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 01:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
I agree w/ the 'this applies to any form of art or information' - like I don't think this overall phenomenon is so far from the fact that encyclopedia britannica is having trouble paying the bills.
but I don't agree that the internet 'needs to be monitored/restricted' - SOPA was taken down by the populist + tech company response. and a more drastic bill woulda attracted even more attention.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 01:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Piracy needs to be combated by carrot and stick. Right now it's almost 100% stick, unless you're in America in which case it's maybe 85% stick.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 01:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
antiques roadshow is the fuckin' bomb imo― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown)
TRUTHBOMB
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 03:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
"and that's why today's records sound so wonderful"
ha! although some people get it right. mostly people outside the mainstream.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 03:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
bye-bye wikipedia!
― Mr. Snrub, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 05:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
now how am i gonna know anything?
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 05:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
A: Rolling Regional Thug Thread will take place in Petco parking lot after hours (boom-boxes provided).
― do you not like slouching? (Eazy), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 06:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Z S, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 06:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
metal-archives.com is gone for the day! this'll be the first time I go 24 w/o using it in years!
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 06:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
I shld really buy a non US domain for ILX, just in case. Us foreign websites can't take no chances.
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 10:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
No Rateyourmusic today either, which isn't a terrible loss, but I've been using it to track what I listen to.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 14:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
is the .ilx TLD still available?
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
French Wikipedia is so quaint
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 16:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
do we need a way to ensure that people can be artists full-time?
Until piratebay starts torrenting booze, inebriated members of the opposite sex, and the atmosphere of a dimly lit bar, perhaps artists can play live shows.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
right, but the $ in live music is never gonna make up for the losses from recorded music
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
It was my understanding that a lot of ppl make the majority of their money touring or at least as much as they make from sales of their work.
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's probably true today but people were playing live music before record sales so the only 'new revenue' is from people who go to live music events today and wouldn't have before.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's kind of silly to turn back the clock to before people sold any records at all, a MUCH smaller percentage of people were playing music at any kind of professional level back then
― lana shel game (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
also they were largely poor/itinerant and dead before the age of 50
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
touring is often p horrible and money losing for small bands fyi, esp w/gas prices now
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
also let's not pretend like live music hasn't changed drastically - the narrowing of venues to bars, large clubs and arenas is totally different from the economic environment of, say, the 20s and 30s where bands could be booked for multi-date engagements at a variety of clubs. If you wanted to dance, you're only option was live music, often provided by a band playing multiple sets a night for several weeks in a row. Nowadays clubs just hire DJs for that shit.
also also also touring is RIDICULOUSLY expensive now with the price of gas, increase in food prices, etc. the odds that a band can survive and make it to the next gig on $200 or whatever are really low.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha yeah I didn't want to be the one to bring that up, but the costs of transportation are only gonna rise over the years xp
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i think you have to hit a certain tipping point where "this many people will show up for you in any major city" before it's anything other than an expensive hobby, and that bar is probably getting higher every year now
― lana shel game (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
it would be pretty interesting to figure out what that exact point is, although maybe it would vary hugely depending on the type of venues, type of band, how good they are with money, etc.
― lana shel game (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Meantime we might as well update a bit here -- the protests actually seem to be doing some good, both Rubio and Cornyn have pulled their sponsorships in the Senate.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
also how big the band is - duos are easier to feed/move than an 8-piece ensemble for ex.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
fwiw I totally do not give a shit about SOPA or PIPA and don't care if they pass or not, getting really irritated by all the righteous indignation of the tech people in my social circle
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
like one dude was complaining about FBI warnings on DVDs. really dude.
maybe we'll get (big) bands doing simulcasts of their shows to theaters like they do with opera now
xps
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
Listening to Mike Doughty (the ex-Soul Coughing frontman) talk about this stuff is pretty interesting. At one point this guy was a rock star with a record deal and a few hits on MTV, and wound up having to take a day job to get by anyway. Now, much less famous, playing smaller shows, and in the era of filesharing (which he famously said "saved his life"), he's finally able to support himself. I mean the new "no money in record sales" enviroment sucks but it sounds much better than what the majors would do to you
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
basically this is just economic/political warfare between mega-rich corporations trafficking in free content (Google, etc.) and formerly mega-rich corporations trafficking in paid content. both sides are reprehensible.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean the new "no money in record sales" enviroment sucks but it sounds much better than what the majors would do to you
lol the scale is vast these generalizations are meaningless
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
...and smaller bands will just skype from one shithole basement to another. the future!
xp2myself
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
like for all the bands that got fucked by a major label, there were guys like Neil Young who were nurtured by major labels and turned into bazillionaires
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
he probably would have made good music even if he weren't a bazillionaire
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
or he might have made one record and died in obscurity
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
well one story then is management one day looked at the books and wondered why there was a "nurture neil young" budget line and got rid of it
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'd say the chances of a musical genius dying in obscurity today are lower than they were 40 years ago
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp: Old man, take a look at my accounts
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
and what are you basing that on exactly iatee
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
he would have, but it would have been different. we shouldn't pretend that they height of the major label system didn't afford artists (some artists) a scale and freedom to do things they couldn't have done otherwise.
for example, "tonight's the night" by neil is one of my favorite albums, but i think it could never have been made without funding, or made by someone that wasn't a rich rock star
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
basically what i'm saying is all the crazy bloat and waste and excess and stupidity created an atmosphere where certain things could happen, and more importantly, they meant something different specifically because of who these people were and the pedestal they were put on.
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
the fact that mass distribution in the internet age isn't inherently limited to a small % of people who make music
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Cool what does Mike have to say about all this?
Major labels have been ripping off artists for decades, and seldom do artists make money from record sales. The people making music that earn a living wage off record sales is probably close to the number of people earning a living wage off playing professional sports.
Licensing is where all the real money is, so maybe the best hope for artists is to combat piracy of the movies/tv shows/commercials that may one day feature their music.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
getting really irritated by all the righteous indignation of the tech people in my social circle
Well, sure, the example you chose to cite about FBI warnings is rmde, but I think there is actually a lot of justified indignation about this bill and it irritates me to people be so casual about it. As it stands right now, these bills go well beyond just pirating music and can impact quite a bit of how the internet gets used. Like I understand if you don't want to care, but I don't think you should be dismissive of people who are following this very closely and do give a shit.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
seems like there are so much more in the former category. from the labels' perspective selling 20 million of one album is so much better than selling a half million of 40 different albums by 40 different artists so obviously the way they treat those two groups are going to be drastically different
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Like I get that people itt are just "well it'll be harder to pirate music now", but that is a dangerously reductive view of these bills.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I'm pretty sure the era of the mega-blockbuster album is over, but the system that creates that seems to do way more harm than good
besides, the cost of getting certain types of sounds/instruments on your album is probably way down from Neil's heyday, but I guess I'm not really sure what you're referring to here
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
same w/ the cost of drugs
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
1) these bills aren't going to pass, they were never going to pass2) programmers/hackers would have just found ways around this shit, like they always do3) righteous indignation about the right to pirate DVDs, MP3s, etc is nagl
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
the cost of getting certain types of sounds/instruments on your album is probably way down from Neil's heyday,
this is absolutely 100% not true
Shakey you are impossible to argue with on this. Like I've said multiple times now, the bills aren't just about illegally downloading music and movies.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
like I said, it really depends on what exactly he's talking about here
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's terrible bill and i don't think it's going to pass, and if it does it won't have the draconian DNS stuff in it IMO
― frogbs, Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:54 AM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
tonight's the night isn't a mega-blockbuster, it's a super ragged album that was done over a few months where neil and the band rented out a building in LA and proceeded to do drugs and drink themselves to death and then did takes at like 2AM
it's an amazing album and captures that vibe of being fucked up beyond belief and sad etc
i'm not saying the money went to like hiring orchestras and brian wilson type shit, i'm saying that it is a great album SPECIFICALLY because neil got to live like he got to live, as a fucked up rockstar coming off a huge hit album and thus the label was willing to fund his ridiculous antics and even release an amazingly non-commercial album because harvest
the album could not have been made on weeknights on a macbook before neil went to bed to go work in an HR job or something
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
there are plenty of musicians out there. some talented ones will always languish in obscurity. some hacks will, inexplicably and inevitably, rise to the top. a few will find their place, high or low on the musical totem, under native impulse. money has little to do with it.
~ from sensei bean's collected tritisms vol. 2 ~
― rocognise gnome (remy bean), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Like I've said multiple times now, the bills aren't just about illegally downloading music and movies.
I know it isn't and I never said they were. Nonetheless, this is what the most panic-stricken comments about these bills have been concerned about.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think righteous indignation about the right to not have your website shut down because an anonymous commenter posted a Youtube video is agl
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
basically i think you need big money and big scale stuff, funded by crooked motherfuckers, it all makes things more interesting
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
so OTM. just the luxury of having months to work on nothing else but a record, hang out in a different locale and do whatever - nobody can do that now.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
the album could not have been made on weeknights on a macbook before neil went to bed to go work in an HR job or somethingbruce berry was a workin man, he used to fill out w-9s
― tylerw, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm pretty sure Mick and Keef still can.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
otoh we have many other new luxuries w/r/t the creation and distribution of music
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not saying music is worse now or anything like that, but in general it is made in a VERY different way now, and the stakes and degree of potential exposure to a mass audience are much lower
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
okay, I see what you're saying now Shakey, I haven't heard the album in question
obviously there are both sides to this. I can see some artists thriving under filesharing that before would have never been able to build an audience otherwise
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
bruce berry was a workin man, he used to fill out w-9s
bands used to have roadies! can you believe it?
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
isn't this how James Murphy made the 3rd LCD Soundsystem record? I don't think its as bad as you're making it out to be
Rupert Murdoch is disappointed:
https://twitter.com/#!/rupertmurdoch/status/159425611000057856
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Murphy is in a fairly unusual situation - head of his own label, income from product placement, etc. - he basically bankrolled that himself. which is not what Neil did.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
don't worry everyone, these bills will not affect your ability to pirate music
― ciderpress, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
rupertmurdochRupert Murdoch
Don't care about people not buying movies, programs or newspapers, just stealing them.
15 hours ago
think this says it all
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, sometimes that goes the other way too. didn't Factory Records spend like $2 million on the Happy Mondays for Yes, Please! and subsequently bankrupt themselves?
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
tbf that's some guesswork on my part. I do recall there being some argument on some other thread a long time ago about how rich James Murphy was and someone pulled up an interview where he revealed he was barely surviving in NY on like $30k a year or something... that was awhile ago though.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey heyWii Wiirock and roll will never die
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
if they don't pass tho Hollywood's ability to keep churning out quality product cd be damaged
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
always important to remember that media companies are continually in panicked darkness about what the public is going to want next. they rely on their contracted performers and writers to come up with the goods but it's not like they really know why it worked or for how long
that sounds kind of obvious to say but shakedown's line about "a fucked up rockstar coming off a huge hit album and thus the label was willing to fund his ridiculous antics" made me think of it
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
tbf that's some guesswork on my part. I do recall there being some argument on some other thread a long time ago about how rich James Murphy was and someone pulled up an interview where he revealed he was barely surviving in NY on like $30k a year or something... that was awhile ago though
that might have been before Pitchfork hyped the shit out of him. I really have no idea how he got so famous as I've never heard him mentioned on radio or TV or really anything besides blogs and sites like this one
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think he got famous because people on the internet liked the music he was making and then other people also liked the music he was making
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
that is just my theory
it was his songs being in beer commercials and gossip girl i bet
― HOOS steen is it anyway? (Lamp), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
suspect LCD gets used on a lot of soundtracks etc
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
I thought his Superbowl appearance did it...?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
from what I know, ppl are making more money off of licensing than anything else
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^strongly suspect this and the commercials is where he really made his dough
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not saying that when the labels die all good music will die, of course it won't, i have like 100s of records my artists that never made any money, were totally obscure etc
but i think it's silly to say that the system didn't work sometimes, and also it's silly to say that specific albums and artists could not have done what they did without it
to use more recent examples of stuff that a lot of ppl on ILM have felt were significant...take say my beautiful dark twisted fantasy...or lady gaga
neither one of those examples could work outside of the big label system, gaga's video budget for one song could bankrupt an indie and there's no way you could self-fund that...
dark twisted fantasy, which i'm not a huge fan of but obv some ppl think is a classic, is more akin to my neil young example...i just flat don't think kanye would have had those songs or those ideas or lyrics or anything without having been a huge coked up millionaire star
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, well obviously something has to go, the industry isn't going to sustain itself like this. I would think it's much harder to sustain the mega-millionaire stars w/ license to do whatever
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
i assume they're easier to maintain because they sell a lot of records?
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
my question was more, "when did this all happen". he was getting plenty of hype in 2005 but from what I had seen few people had heard of him or came to the shows.
this is probably true, I think the goal for most young artists is just to get a song in Madden or Tony Hawk 16
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
a lot of bands don't get anything for being in EA Sports titles, lots of times A&Rs work really hard to get placement in games as promo
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's different in the case of GTA where rockstar takes a lot of pride in curating a soundtrack to capture and era and vibe
well, i've heard the opposite (that they do get paid), but yeah I think getting in a game like GTA is so huge regardless b/c you now have millions of people listening to your song over and over again where the more "traditional" exposure methods like radio/MTV are kinda dead to most bands
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
this goes back to what I was talking about w/ avatar upthread. could that movie have been made without a 1/4 billion dollar investment? no. is it cool that you can still make 1/4 billion dollar investments in a work of art and make money? sure. will this model last forever? no. you can say the model we're trending towards in the music business is a good thing or a bad thing, but either way it's still a thing.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
m@tt works in the videogame industry iirc pretty sure he knows what he's talking about. plus you realize that in the former scenario you describe you imply the band should be grateful for simply getting exposure, whereas in the latter scenario they would have actually gotten paid.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe they should be grateful for simple getting exposure when there are 100,000 other bands out there
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
simply
well, i've heard the opposite (that they do get paid)
sometimes but matts right abt the EA games
― HOOS steen is it anyway? (Lamp), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's pretty obvious from the acts that get on FIFA games that it's a plugging exercise
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
i wish i had that problem
― rocognise gnome (remy bean), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
"thanks for all of the exposure, I plan to use it to pay my rent this month"
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm a video game character and matt's wrong
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's an honor to meet you waluigi
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
omfg lol
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
sure but you can't deny that the goalposts have moved significantly - ie, from "I can make a living at this" to "I need to make a living at something else, but at least some people know about me". that's a huge shift.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
the goalposts are shifting for most americans tbh
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
"you should just be grateful for getting the exposure, we could've given this opportunity to 100,000 other bands" is the eternal mantra of the music industry scumbag who doesn't want to pay a musician for their work fyi
― lana shel game (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
music industry scumbags are gonna have more trouble finding work than musicians in the long-term
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry i didn't say more broadly "entertainment industry scumbags" since we're talking about why bands might not profit off of video game soundtrack placement as much as they could
― lana shel game (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
they don't profit because there's a lot of music out there and the difference between hearing band x's okay song and band y's okay song is really not that big for most people playing madden
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
People equate fame with fortune. They think if you're on TV, you're making alot of money, rather than a standard industry rate.
Also, you do not need a ton of funding to have your band live in a house doing drugs together and recording music. People do this with zero label support all the time.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
well i don't know if we're talking about the difference between a band getting a FAIR royalty rate or any kind of usage fee and nothing else or getting screwed out of even that, maybe m@tt could clarify. but honestly you're just parroting the mindset of every label and club owner for the past 50+ years that says "why should i pay you? any other band in town would die to be in your shoes, you should be thanking me."
xpost
― lana shel game (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not parroting their mindset, I'm explaining why there's financial logic to it. that doesn't mean it's 'fair'. I see what's happening here as analogous to other things that are happening in our economy that might look 'not fair' - overall it's harder and harder for people to get paid for 'work they do'. I don't think that's a good thing! but I do think that there are amazing social gains from having total freedom of information and because of that it's worth it for the gov't to just pay people to be artists. not that much money in the big picture. fin.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
does the NEA even still dole out grants?
lol pisschrist
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
The people making music that earn a living wage off record sales is probably close to the number of people earning a living wage off playing professional sports.
btw this is one of those awesomely compelling sounding arguments that is actually 100% wrong. theres lots of people making a living wage off of music, its just not in the cool i am in an indie band way.
― blurgh (jjjusten), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
"cool"
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
O RLY
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
am happy for orchestral musicians to get paid in full
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
well tbf people who sell yankees caps are 'making a living wage off professional sports' if you want to expand that in the other direction
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Roy Blunt has pulled sponsorship.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
i guess it depends what 'pro sports' means. i mean there are a LOT of people playing in a LOT of leagues of a LOT of different sports, it adds up. but yeah still probably more gigging musicians.
― lana shel game (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah those orchestra dudes are doing alright (altho not forever in some markets obv) but also yknow sometimes u have to shit your way through some godawful tribute band to have the time and $$ to record stuff you actually care about, and thats ok frankly.
― blurgh (jjjusten), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think the issue is not so much artists working for free to record music for a video game as it is video game companies using music that was already recorded and for sale in their games
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
i seriously doubt there was any confusion with anyone about that.
― lana shel game (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
ze german pov
― meisenfek, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp i know, but that's how a lot of this is reading
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, one kinda begets the other. i'm not sure what you're suggesting is going to happen here
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've always been under the impression that the musicians that are most likely to earn a living are wedding bands, smooth-jazz-standards-for-'classy'-bars bands, some session dudes, advertising jingle writers etc. Figure it's similar to the way in which most actors who earn a living by it are not film stars, y'know.
― emil.y, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
but I do think that there are amazing social gains from having total freedom of information and because of that it's worth it for the gov't to just pay people to be artists.
Sorry, no, a government that "just pays people to be artists" also gets to decide who is and isn't one. Do you trust the fucking Republican House of Representatives not to just give all your money to Ray Stevens and that chick from Northern Exposure? I sure don't.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean, shit, I play the bass and guitar and have been in bands and have an entry at AllMusic and a bunch of songs with BMI. Where's my check?
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
i would think it would be based on something like "who's getting the plays on Spotify" rather than anything the government controls
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, that's kinda cart before the horse territory, isn't it?
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol that sounds like a total racket
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I guess the difference is I don't see this as 'govt pays people to be artists vs market pays people to be artists' I see this as 'govt pays people to be artists or nobody pays people to be artists'
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
I like this conversation, just chiming in with thoughts
lots of parallels with the long history of arguments and dialogues about the sad demise of classical music. which is still around, but as a museum. few people mind; by the early 1920's it was pretty clear most of the good music for that medium had already been written, and the newer works were either populist neo-classical collages of earlier works, or too experimental and esoteric to captivate a large audience
what's dying now is popular music as we know it, funded by major labels, and we're at the neo-classical phase. the largest artists are collagists hopping across the last 50 years of styles, and the experimenters are increasingly fringe. it's winding down and its passing is nothing to mourn.
people worshipping at the altar of classical were not in a position to accept jazz & pop as substitutes in the 1920's, the new music was a base competitor corrupting the children & leading young instrumentalists away from the higher discipline, it took another 4-5 decades before recorded pop proved itself as a 'high' art form, it really might be a while before we get some clarity on this issue, but the music being posted for free on youtube like tap water is already incredibly fascinating and the technology behind video game soundtrack composition, which is mixed in real time by the games and different every time you hear it, is already several paradigm shifts ahead of the way most of us like to think about music
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
but anyway SOPA can't pass and I'd be seriously surprised if PIPA does
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
all i'm saying is that the system would be in some way based on what people actually listen to. obviously you wouldn't want to pay for bands that nobody likes
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
and besides that, i'm not sure what would work better.
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
video game soundtrack composition, which is mixed in real time by the games and different every time you hear it
like 1/2 of it is "procedural" sam's choice hans zimmer but there is some interesting stuff going on
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Milton otm
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
nintendo has done some pretty amazing things along these lines, especially in games like "Mario Galaxy"
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
money-making opportunities created by the sale of recorded media were a small blip relative to the history of human music-making. musicians of all sorts were making a decent living long before the advent of the commercial music industry. suspect that this will continue to be true even when the sale of recordings to consumers ceases to be a big dollar engine for anyone.
when do we see the emergence of a generation of hip young artists who don't record/release anything, and instead make their music available only through their live shows?
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
plus Milton OTM
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's a pretty interesting take milton tho find this line curious: by the early 1920's it was pretty clear most of the good music for that medium had already been written,
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
there is some truth to this though, compare everything we got from 1969-1984 to everything from 1998-present
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 20:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
though the real equivalent to milton's point = "everything we got from 1929-2000" in comparison with what's going on right now
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 20:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
it really might be a while before we get some clarity on this issue
what's your take on the french revolution nyuk nyuk
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
obviously you wouldn't want to pay for bands that nobody likes
i do!
― blurgh (jjjusten), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
I find the 'classical music has been exhausted' argument interesting. can you exhaust a genre? is there low-hanging artistic fruit that someone takes and then that's that? this is veering into new-thread territory.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp - uh, why?
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
out of spite
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
well i was being flip abt my own musical tastes but in a more serious way this goes to the whole problem of a govt pd artist program - the nea doesnt pay for popular artists they pay for "artists of merit" however that is defined. but plenty of (republican) people would like to establish some sort of metric where popularity is the dispersal unit which would lead to guess what blando art and all the crap peeps from that shitshow on bravo would be living in cocaine castles.
― blurgh (jjjusten), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk it'd be more like guaranteed income for people who prove that they're working musicians and produce a certain quantity of work, not 'gov't bureaucrat is the new talent agent'
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think in general people are becoming more educated about what the "good stuff" is, thanks to the internet of course
obviously the Justin Bieber world is always going to exist and be hugely profitable in some capacity
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
So under that system, Robert Pollard would be set for life.
(xpost)
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
considering that we live in a country where 'subsidized medical care for poor people' is ~controversial~, yeah, we're far from something like this but the future will be a strange place
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
its a neat idea except for the part where it is insane and impossible
― blurgh (jjjusten), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
i have read quasi-scifi stuff about the future of socialism being some combo of public ownership/elimination of private ownership of intellectual property, where "producers" however defined are subsidized via tax transfers. i don't get the particulars either but it's not like iatee is making this idea up!
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk I'm sorta getting into my crazy futurist ramblings but eventually I don't think this type of thing will be limited to musicians.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp yeah basically
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
well yeah it used to be called patronage but guess what it led to a separation of "high art" (classical) from low art (folk or whatever you want to call it) and the same thing would happen under this system. its a non-starter.
― blurgh (jjjusten), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
like betty blue hair is going to write her congressperson when she finds out i am getting government cheese for my power drill and bucket kicked down the stairs series of eps
― blurgh (jjjusten), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
well she won't have a job either
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
― frogbs, Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:42 PM (6 minutes ago)
smdh
― Steamtable Willie (WmC), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah if u dudes arent careful im going to go ten kinds of philosophy of aesthetics on yall
― blurgh (jjjusten), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
So in iatee's future we will all live in an expertly designed urban megalopolis with renewable resources, but no one will have any jobs? Bleak dude, bleak.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
has patronage even gone away?
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
not in the slightest IMO
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean, what do you think record labels etc are but a for-profit patronage system
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
you really disagree with that?
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
well that's not really what i meant. the donor/foundation-manager/big ticket art buyer crowd aren't nobility (well not all of them) but they're pretty close
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
very few people will have jobs because computers will do most things we consider to be jobs! it's only bleak if we don't redistribute the social gains from this.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey, while where all here: if you turn javascript off wikipedia is still perfectly visible.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
(like i didn't get all the "wiki person with funney page title" screencap humor cos i wasn't seeing any of that shit to begin with)
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
not denying this at all; in fact, a truculent patron was 100% of the reason why Opera Boston imploded: http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-15/arts/30627936_1_development-director-metropolitan-opera-board-president
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
― rocognise gnome (remy bean), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nielsen SoundScan top selling albums 2011
1 Adele - 21, 5,824,0002 Michael Buble - Christmas, 2,452,0003 Lady Gaga - Born This Way, 2,101,0004 Lil’ Wayne - Tha Carter IV, 1,917,0005 Jason Aldean - My Kinda Party, 1,576,0006 Mumford & Sons - Sigh No More, 1,420,0007 Drake - Take Care, 1,247,0008 Justin Bieber - Under The Mistletoe, 1,245,0009 Jay Z & Kanye West - Watch The Throne, 1,232,00010 Lady Antebellum - Own The Night, 1,204,000
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not talking about top 40 junk, that's pretty much always going to be the same
i'm talking about people who actually try to discover music on their own and all the resources available to them these days as opposed to 15 years ago
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
so... you're not actually talking about people "in general" despite what you said
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
i dont really think its that hard to figure outlike, do you really think we'd be going through a 2nd wave of Can re-issues if not for all the internet hype/youtube/downloading?
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
i dont really think its that hard to figure out
lol neither does anyone else
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk who cares if people like 'good music' the question is whether people are enjoying music more / finding more types of music they enjoy
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
exactly which I'm saying would allow the market to 'figure itself out' (in a supposed future world)
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2012 04:55 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Dude, despite 'piracy' being in the name these bills are not about piracy at all. They're about a load of content companies, bloated by a century of physical distribution and region lockout, trying to control the entire internet in order to save themselves and themselves alone.
Remember that this is the first time in history these companies have not had complete control of the distribution medium. That's their goal here. The word 'piracy' is chucked in to distort their motives.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Save yourself some time Schlafsack and just beat your own head against the wall, it'll be less frustrating.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
depressing
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, we get that; the thing is, the companies who are opposed to this are worth way way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than the companies who are supporting it, plus they are stating that putting this legislation into place will hurt their ability to do business, ergo NOT GONNA HAPPEN
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
programmers/hackers would have just found ways around this shit, like they always doDCMA has been a pretty good guide to how even though there were ways around it, it's still a fucking monumental pain in the ass. And DCMA was like asking politely compared to this mugging.
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
id be curious to see how a bill like this would do if it weren't so fucking extreme
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
I ate sopes because of this thread
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
thank you D@n
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
the companies who are opposed to this are worth way way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than the companies who are supporting it
You reckon the pro-SOPA/PIPA companies are not prepared to kill themselves fighting this thing? I'm not saying you're wrong but they've still got deep pockets, and I suspect many of them see this as their last chance before the 21st century hatchets them to death.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
who cares? Google et al are more powerful at this point and everyone knows it
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is just a battle between different sets of corporate overlords hooray for patting yourself on the back for choosing one over the other. they all fucking suck afaic.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw re this from shakey
programmers/hackers would have just found ways around this shit, like they always do
Yes, and at least 99% of all DRM in history has only punished people who are doing the right thing.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
clearly this thread has kind of ranged beyond even the broad implications of this one bill.
i don't think anyone is surprised to see it become a fight among superrich firms with a stake in the outcome
xp well to elaborate more, it is an actual fight ie the outcome is not really foreordained. maybe "the RIAA" will win or maybe "google" will, yet. we will see conflict over this kind of shit for the rest of our lives probably!
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2012 09:32 (54 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2012 09:33 (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
You don't have to blindly take a side. It's possible to say SOPA and PIPA are fucking ridiculous while also opposing open slather to torrent sites. The solution is somewhere in the middle.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
seems to me like 99% of all DRM policy has been an abject failure so again, who cares
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
while also opposing open slather to torrent sites.
how does one do this? these sites exist and nothing can stop them, certainly not some half-baked paranoid legislation with no prayer of passing
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's why the best way to deal with piracy (assuming that's the motive (which it isn't)) is offering superior access to the same content. Despite the loony ranting of the "can't complete with free" brigade it's absolutely possible.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
I reckon that it doesn't matter if they are prepared to kill themselves or not; in fact, I invite them to kill themselves as it will put them out of their misery faster rather than the 30 year agonizing decline they are currently staring at; perhaps with them gone someone can figure out a business model that actually fits the landscape.
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
it failed at preventing piracy; it totally succeeded in making electronics more complicated, expensive and hard to use than they need to be. Like HDMI cables and DVD ads you can't skip and lots of other bullshit that's too low-level to go and download some crack for, but annoying enough that it's still bullshit.
That DRM is easy to subvert and doesn't prevent piracy doesn't mean it has no effect at all.
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2012 09:37 (43 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I was referring to e.g. Google displaying torrent links in search results. The easy way to stop that would be to legislate against it. It wouldn't stop determined pirates (nothing would) but it would disguise from your average pleb the notion that a free illegal copy is one click away.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
it would disguise from your average pleb the notion that a free illegal copy is one click away.
lol wuht everyone who is not a goddamn idiot knows that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is one click away at this point
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Like HDMI cables and DVD ads you can't skip and lots of other bullshit that's too low-level to go and download some crack for, but annoying enough that it's still bullshit.
lol rmde take it to the first world problems thread
to repeat myself a little differently, i don't know why people (shakey) are saying this bill never had a shot. clearly it did! otherwise it wouldn't be controversial!
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
like that's what you wanna get up in arms about, the important shit like how annoying it is to watch DVD ads. oh the humanity.
i don't know why people (shakey) are saying this bill never had a shot.
for the simple fact that Google et al have more money and political clout than WEA et al.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 09:39 (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I can't prove this (obviously) but without DRM I seriously doubt piracy would be as widespread as it is now. A prime example is that bullshit notion of authorising music you've bought with a service that completely closes down after two years, taking with it your access to the music that you paid for. There are loads of people who will never trust content companies again.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
DRM was basically what got me to stop buying any major-label discs altogether, as I was one of the unlucky few that couldn't get the thing to work on their car stereo too, it really did have the feeling of being "punished for doing the right thing"
That's why the best way to deal with piracy (assuming that's the motive (which it isn't)) is offering superior access to the same content.
this is exactly it - I'm okay with paying for things I can get for free, but when the free stuff is superior (as it is when the CDs have DRM, or the iTunes m4a's can't be transferred cleanly between computers or hassle you otherwise), that's when I just won't pay
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
SOPA is looking more dead by the minute. co-sponsors are pulling out, white house seemed to indicate it would not pass it about a week ago.
to be honest, i don't think it's entirely down to lobbying by Google, maybe i'm naive but i think the public outcry really had an effect here...for example the white house's first statement against was a response to an internet petition.
so you know, maybe a bit of hope in that all the hue and cry does seem to have helped (IMO)
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
major label CDs have DRM? not the ones i buy
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't think that's readily apparent. or, obvious the interested parties didn't see a game so one-sided they didn't bother to show up to play, did they?
this isn't like the single-payer health plan bill john dingell filed every year for 40 years, it was a real divide.
i think the web panic of your jimmy wales types had a real effect btw. plenty of other telecom/IP issues come and go w/o more than the core of committed activists knowing or caring, usually just to bemoan another loss.
xp 2 shakey
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2012 09:41 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're assuming that everyone knows how to pirate stuff. They don't.
On a different but related point, recently I found out my dad has been pirating music and he didn't even know it. He found an app on his Android phone that gave him free access to a load of music, then one day called me asking why the app had vanished.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
i personally do no know how to torrent anything and never have
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
perhaps with them gone someone can figure out a business model that actually fits the landscape.
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 19 January 2012 09:38 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I get the strong impression that Steve Jobs spent the last decade of his life trying to implement exactly that, and was fought every single step of the way (I'm not saying his way was 100% correct btw)
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol poor steve jobs, he just wanted to make more than both the label and the artist for putting up a website where ppl could download mp3s :(
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I've read articles about some of the ideas Jobs had for this and I don't think iTunes as it exists now is even close
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
basically how itunes works is the label used to fuck you then give you the scraps, and how itunes works is the label fucks you then itunes fucks you and you get the smaller scraps
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, but this is backward. That's the effect DRM has had -- unskippable adverts, expensive cables, games you can't play without the internet, etc. Amazing, great job, industry.
And the price of achieving that has been to create effectively useless technology that doesn't interoperate and you can't use to build anything interesting or new with. DRM literally holds back the tech industry, either by making things legally or technically impossible, or just much too expensive.
To achieve nothing more than some adverts you can't skip!
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
xxp Yeah, I mean Jobs was clearly lining Apple's pockets first and foremost but his plans far outweighed anything any content company has ever put into practice. If he had got his way many years ago, the balance would be tipped in his favour but everyone would be making a fortune and piracy would have simmered back down to outlier levels imo.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
my friends are awesome
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
just because I dunno how to do it doesn't mean I'm unaware that it can be done and would not be able to figure it out
i think the web panic of your jimmy wales types had a real effect btw.
Google donating $2.5 million to wikipedia (an enterprise they had previously tried to kill) might have had something to do with that lol
xxp
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
how itunes works is the label fucks you then itunes fucks you and you get the smaller scraps
you should be grateful for the exposure etc
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's the effect DRM has had -- unskippable adverts, expensive cables, games you can't play without the internet, etc. Amazing, great job, industry.
The irony of sitting through a 15 second "do not copy or lend or broadcast this DVD" warning is totally obscene.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
advertising is increasingly the basis for the entire economy and culture, you might wanna rethink its importance.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol I hope you're not trying to draw a parallel there Shakey
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 22:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait, more expensive cables? how does DRM have anything to do with idiots like Monster Cable screwing over rubes with "high quality" HDMI cables at Best Buy?
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
because gold plated cables
― rocognise gnome (remy bean), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can't prove this (obviously) but without DRM I seriously doubt piracy would be as widespread as it is now.
It totally wouldn't be. DRM punishes the people who don't pirate, especially in games. Some games have unbelievably draconian DRM licence checking -- like you must have a live internet connection for every second you play and a disc in the drive or they quit and you lose your saves, while the pirate versions have none of that at all. If your hard drive dies and you reinstall Photoshop, it'll refuse to run until you phone Adobe and go through a multiple-day dance to de-auth your dead machine, but the cracked version will run instantly.
DRM cripples software for legitimate people and means pirates get better stuff. How would that not encourage piracy?
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Advertising is only as powerful as the number of people who respond to it.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
my facebook is littered with this crap too, which would be somewhat pointed if this bill had any chance of passing in the first place
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
apple is basically the least "open" company ever, i think it's hilarious that they are being brought up as some paragon of freedom in the tech field.
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
If he had got his way many years ago, the balance would be tipped in his favour but everyone would be making a fortune and piracy would have simmered back down to outlier levels imo.
I can't even... this is such pie-in-the-sky idolization nonsense. People like free things because they're free. If they can get something for free rather than pay for it, they will take it. The last 10 years have borne this out with startling clarity.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
also steve jobs never gave a fuck about content, he made you want sexy objects and knew if he was successful he could bully his way into getting whatever content he needed
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
stet totally OTM in regards to this stuff, the whole "genuine Windows" thing fucked everyone who ever had computer repairs done, the results of which was a hell of a lot more pirating
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Economically speaking, this is demonstrably untrue.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
If your hard drive dies and you reinstall Photoshop, it'll refuse to run until you phone Adobe and go through a multiple-day dance to de-auth your dead machine, but the cracked version will run instantly.
Additionally to this, I've mentioned somewhere here before that Adobe products are more than twice as expensive for Australians as they are for Americans, despite being exactly the same products. You download them from the web site, so Adobe can't even claim it's for distribution. I know for a fact that that drives people to piracy.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Companies spend BAJILLIONS advertising products that fail, and all that money paid salaries for people, including funding things like uh GOOGLE, whether the product fails or not.
product fails succeeds or not
eh you get the idea. I hope.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not sure you're following
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
People like free things because they're free. If they can get something for free rather than pay for it, they will take it. The last 10 years have borne this out with startling clarity.
We've explained why that's a nonsense argument but clearly you don't want to listen.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is so totally wrong
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2012 10:04 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Go on.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
at least we can all agree that Adobe is a horrible company to deal with lol
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
how does DRM have anything to do with idiots like Monster Cable screwing over rubes with "high quality" HDMI cables at Best Buy?
thats the gold bullshit, but every hdmi cable manufacturer has to pay for a licence to make a hdmi cable, which raises the costs for everyone. This was so they can try and prevent people making cables that would fuck with hdcp content "protection"
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
and applexp
― Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
carts are increasingly coming before horses
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
things bankrolled by advertising: Google, Facebook, every news site, television, rock bands, rap acts, films, Pitchfork etc etc
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
― stet, Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:06 PM (58 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
didn't know that, but honestly if you go on amazon or newegg or something it's down to pretty low, like a $1/foot for HDMI now, unless you actively want to get suckered
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
stet's point is that the cost of DRM is passed on to the customer (who has already done the right thing by paying for the thing that's enforcing the DRM).
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.thefader.com/2012/01/18/swizz-beatz-is-the-ceo-of-megaupload/
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
!!!!
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it's hilarious that the "people WANT to pay for things, if only we could figure out HOW" angle is essentially unchanged (and just as wrong) as when it was first proffered at the turn of the century. Are you going to be making this same argument 50 years from now when companies still can't figure out how to get people to pay for content? People clearly don't want to pay for things. If something's free and convenient, they take it.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
omg @ that swizz thing
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
So it's good for who that they all punish their paying/legitimate customers by forcing them to watch advertising that the pirates don't have to watch?
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it's hilarious that the "people WANT to pay for things, if only we could figure out HOW" angle is essentially unchanged (and just as wrong) as when it was first proffered at the turn of the century.
that's not the argument here. the argument is that the free version is better than the paid version. i'd sure as hell pay for a service like Oink if one existed!
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
The turn of the 20th century? That's the century that made the content industry rich by selling squillions of records, newspapers, books, magazines, audio tapes, video tapes, CDs, DVDs and video games, yeah?
People clearly don't want to pay for things. If something's free and convenient, they take it.
If you stopped generalising you would begin to understand out point.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Shakey, read this (even just the headline will do): http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/05/netflix-traffic/
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
If something's free and convenient, they take it.
If something's free and a bit of a hassle vs cheap and convenient it's totally not so clear what people will do.
Like there are entire luxury industries predicated on the fact that people will pay a bit more for convenience. Like you could give away blocks of cheese and some people would still buy grated cheese in bags.
Downloading from iTunes is in a lot of cases a lot less hassle than finding a good-quality torrent w/loads of seeders. If you don't know how to torrent or how to evaluate them, the margin is even wider.
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
you're missing my point entirely. is Google punishing you? the NY Times? Pitchfork? My point is that all of these services can't make money providing content or even a service, they make all their money from advertising. advertising has become a foundational sector of the global economy, so much so that basic infrastructural and cultural institutions cannot even exist without it. I'm not saying this is a good thing (on the contrary I think it's an absolutely idiotic and horrible thing) but it is a reality.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it is a good thing that google is free
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Netflix streaming movies now fill more of the United States’ internet tubes than any other service, including peer-to-peer file sharing, which long held the top spot
also was this article before or after Netflix totally shot themselves in the foot with the increased fees thing.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Netflix not exactly a thriving company/economic model at this point, iirc
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Downloading from iTunes is in a lot of cases a lot less hassle than finding a good-quality torrent w/loads of seeders.
you know what's even easier is just downloading a zip file of megaupload or mediafire
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
OFF megaupload or mediafire
bemoaning advertising while complaining about the weird but quite capitalist music biz at the same time is strange to me. do you think the pre-internet music business could have existed without its various forms of advertisement?
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
about the death of* the weird
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Absolutely, but it indicates that there are still a hell of a lot of people willing to pay for content.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
finding them can be tough especially when there are a bunch of links full of trojans
― frogbs, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
My point is that all of these services can't make money providing content or even a service, they make all their money from advertising.
Of those three, only the NY Times have tried to charge, and they made a mess of that. I don't think the Times paywall is a great idea, but it's apparently washing its face. I would pay some hefty money for ad-free GMail too, if only they'd ask me.
That's ignoring the ones who are trying to sell a lower-quality product and then say "you can't sell it, people want free stuff, we need to rely on ads, that we will force them to watch [and make our quality worse, so that people will pirate even more, and remove the ads, which we rely on because we sell low-quality alternatives]"
so yeah, they make all their money from advertising, but that's in no way an inescapable law of digital economics or something.
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
man i have been craving sopapillas constantly the last few days because of this stupid fuckin legislation
― Planned Perrintweet (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
is Google punishing you? the NY Times? Pitchfork? My point is that all of these services can't make money providing content or even a service, they make all their money from advertising. advertising has become a foundational sector of the global economy, so much so that basic infrastructural and cultural institutions cannot even exist without it.
Yes, and it's only as powerful as the number of people who respond to it. In your example, if everyone installs ad blocking software and the advertisers don't get a return on their investment, the advertising stops.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Worth bringing up, I guess, that the various industries are even in a position to complain because they famously pushed through massively favorable copyright extension legislation some years ago. I'm curious to know how they'll deal in, say, the UK when suddenly all these monster catalogs go public domain.
Oh, wait, they pulled a fast one there, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/arts/music/european-union-extends-copyright-on-recordings.html
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
And also because the VCR saved them, after them trying to kill it too.
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Which is another way of saying they screwed up (which we all know) by not grabbing onto MP3s as the logical revenue-stream successor to CDs. They broke the cycle by myopically focusing on CD dough.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, because they could control CDs end-to-end but had no control over MP3s.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
In your example, if everyone installs ad blocking software and the advertisers don't get a return on their investment, the advertising stops.
uh that is not how Google and Facebook make their advertising/marketing money
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
advertisers/marketers pay those firms to mine their data, in turn using that information to target consumers etc. it's not a straight eyeballs = $$$ scenario
again you are attacking advertising while complaining about the demise of a certain capitalist sector
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
er sector's the wrong word, but you know what I mean
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm just describing how advertising works. I don't like it but it is what it is. I dunno what complaining I've done re: the demise of the music industry - I mean think it's sad that artists essentially make less money these days, across the board, but I don't hold any particular love for the music industry, which was fairly monstrous in its heyday and had plenty of horrible practices.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I see what you mean Shakey but I don't know whether data miners are advertising something per se.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
― rocognise gnome (remy bean), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
i just thought that was funny, not directed really anywhere
I mean yes data mining leads to targeted advertising, but advertising is advertising, and all of it requires people's attention in order to survive xxp
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
this thread is a lot more fun after i gave up caring and just decided to watch shakey and frogbs and iatee circle around each in a festive dance of faulty logic and useless generalizations
― Planned Perrintweet (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
your welcome
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
bad spelling, too
― Planned Perrintweet (some dude), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not sure how much data mining is actually being sold vs being a scare story for potential future sales. Like where on FB can I go to give them money to target single white guys aged 24 who eat pot noodles and didn't make new friends at Christmas? They let you do that only if you're targetting ads which they will then serve -- they definitely don't return you a list of users to do anything with.
same deal w/google. They mine on your behalf, but they never give you the data. Your only way of interacting with the mining is to buy a display ad
― stet, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm just describing how advertising works. I don't like it but it is what it is.
you consider one piece of 20th century capitalism to be objectively evil but you're sad about the death of another piece of 20th century capitalism, when really they are mixed together and you have to look at the macro picture and not just isolate things you like and don't like.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes these things are all intertwined.
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm glad we agree
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
this just in: if you enjoy buying free range tomatoes you are also required to enjoy purchasing products from big pharm. and firearms.
― blurgh (jjjusten), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
or am i missing some crucial nuance in your argument here
huh? my argument was that advertising was a big part of a certain business model that shakey's sad to see disappearing, but he also 'hates advertising, man'.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
pretty sure those things are totally seperable tho. i like television but do not enjoy advertising on television, it seems like you are saying that i shouldnt be able to like television then.
― blurgh (jjjusten), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Indonesia has gone to imaginative extremes to try to stop commuters from illegally riding the roofs of trains – hosing down the scofflaws with red paint, threatening them with dogs and appealing for help from religious leaders.
Now the authorities have an intimidating and possibly even deadly new tactic: Suspending rows of grapefruit-sized concrete balls to rake over the top of trains as they pull out of stations, or when they go through rail crossings.
Authorities hope the balls – which could deliver serious blows to the head – will be enough to deter defiant roof riders.
“We’ve tried just about everything, even putting rolls of barbed wire on the roof, but nothing seems to work,” said Mateta Rizahulhaq, a spokesman for the state-owned railway company PT Kereta Api. “Maybe this will do it.”
Trains that crisscross Indonesia on poorly maintained tracks left behind by Dutch colonizers six decades ago usually are packed with passengers, especially during the rush hour.
Hundreds seeking to escape the overcrowded carriages clamor to the top. Some ride high to avoid paying for a ticket. Others do so because – despite the dangers, with dozens killed or injured every year – “rail surfing” is fun.
The first dozen or so balls were installed Tuesday hundreds of metres from the entrance of a train station just outside the capital, Jakarta. Painted silver, the balls hung by chains from what looked like the frame of a giant soccer goal.
But there was a glitch: the chains were too short, leaving a gap of about 40 centimetres between the balls and the roofs of the passing train carriages. Mr. Rizahulhaq said adjustments would be made.
If successful, the project will be expanded, with balls also set up near railway crossings.
Asked about worries that the balls could hurt or even kill those who defy the roof-riding ban, he insisted that wasn’t really his problem.
“They don’t have to sit on top,” he said. “And we’ve already told them, if the train is full, go to the office. We will be happy to reimburse their tickets.”
The commuters, known as “Atappers” or “Roofers,” meanwhile are hardcore in their determination to stay on top.
“I was really scared when I first heard about these balls,” said Mulyanto, a 27-year-old shopkeeper, who rides between his hometown of Bogor and Jakarta almost every day for work. “It sounds like it could be really dangerous.”
“But I don’t think it’ll last long,” he said. “They’ve tried everything to keep us from riding ... in the end we always win.”
“We like it up there, it’s windy, really nice.”
Many of the roof riders – and regular passengers – say the main problem lies with Indonesia’s dilapidated railway system. There are not enough trains to meet demand, they say. And there are constant delays in service.
“People have jobs! They can’t be late,” said Parto, a trader at the Jakarta stock exchange, who can usually be found sitting inside. “If the train is late, they’ll do whatever they have to.”
Several years ago, paint guns were set up to spray those riding on the top of carriages so authorities could identify and round up the guilty travelers. But roof riders destroyed the equipment soon after. The exhortations of clerics didn’t work. Neither did the dogs.
At one point, police decided to do the expected: arrest the culprits. But their officers were pelted with rocks and they gave up.
― m0stlyClean, Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
no it's more like if you were complaining about the death of the television cable business but were also like "and I wish they would just get rid of all those damn ads"
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
but ads do not directly subsidise the traditional music industry. i mean if you are trying to say that if you dislike ads you have to reject things that are advertised uh basically you dont get to buy anything?
― blurgh (jjjusten), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
a festive dance of faulty logic and useless generalizations
board description
― call all destroyer, Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
the record label biz model involved big companies that paid $ to advertise music so that consumers would decide to spend their $ buying record x or record y. my only point is that it wasn't a small part of the business model shakey's mourning.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
there are still a hell of a lot of people willing to pay for content.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:25 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
that may be true, but it elides a crucial "at this point." relative to 20-30 years ago and adjusted for inflation, fewer people are willing to regularly shell out substantial sums for books, movies, music, newspapers and magazines. and we're only seeing the tip of the free exchange of informationberg.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but
the record label biz model involved big companies that paid $ to advertise music so that consumers would decide to spend their $ buying record x or record y
― blurgh (jjjusten), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
otm. i can sort-of see some sorts of business models being cadged together for most of these things, albeit with vastly reduced profits. But for seriously capital-intensive stuff, like big-budget films w/out cgi, i'm not sure how this is going to pan out. xp
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
right I'm not against advertising xp
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
imo that's rather a pessimistic view. VHS and DVD sales have been enormous despite free-to-air television, music sales have always been strong despite free radio, newspapers have always sold well despite stress press etc. If you provide quality, package it well and make it easy to obtain, many people will always take it over (or alongside) the free equivalent. Yes music, movies, television etc. is easy to grab on demand now, but it's a massive pain in the arse to get content that way, so the opportunity to capitalise on the internet as a distribution medium is still enormous.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw those who insist torrents are the inevitable future might want to look at the sharp rise of locked down systems like the ipad, and give some thought to how incredibly easy it is to buy content on those things.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yes music, movies, television etc. is easy to grab on demand now, but it's a massive pain in the arse to get content that way
I accidentally left the word "free" out of this sentence
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
you are so deluded
― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol more like YOU are
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
you guys still going
― Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
All right Shakey, here's a near-future scenario. You're on the sofa and you want to watch Bridesmaids 3. Here are your options:
1. You get up and/or grab your laptop, sift through a few torrent sites (assuming you have the technical knowledge to do so) until you find a copy of Bridesmaids 3 that (a) isn't a screener (b) is in English (c) doesn't have Dutch subtitles and (d) is seeded to 100%, queue it for download, go back to the sofa and cross your fingers that it will play.
2. Without getting off your arse, you press a button on the remote you're already holding and say "show Bridesmaids 3". The telly offers you a clean HD rental for U$4. You say "yes" and you're watching it inside 30 seconds.
If you think option 2 is doomed to failure then frankly you misunderstand how a lot of people work.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^otm
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
well it's sorta the apple-future vs. the google-future
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
VHS and DVD sales have been enormous despite free-to-air television, music sales have always been strong despite free radio, newspapers have always sold well despite stress press etc.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:45 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:47 PM (42 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
the latter is a much better point than the former, imo. the internet's information transfer system is different in kind from anything that's ever existed before. VHS, broadcast television and radio aren't apt comparisons.
also, i don't see any good reason to put great faith in "If you provide quality, package it well and make it easy to obtain, many people will always take it over (or alongside) the free equivalent." some people will of course do this, but i don't know that they're going to provide enough revenue to support a thriving entertainment industry. i mean, what's the equivalent case on which your assumption is based? is there anything that people have long paid a lot for that they've long been easily able to get for free in exactly the same form (i.e., without sacrificing perceptible quality)?
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Newspapers, p. much.
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
Water, also.
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Here's a slightly-less-near-future scenario. You're on the sofa and you want to watch Bridesmaids 3.
1. You get up and/or grab your device (you only need one), and you face a choice between pushing button A and getting what you want for free and pushing button B and getting exactly the same thing for a few cubits. No appreciable difference in simplicity or time involved.
2. Without getting off your arse, you press a button on the remote and watch Bridesmaids 3 for free. Of course.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Newspapers? There's a big, easily perceptible difference between free papers and those you pay money for. And the ones you pay money for are dying fast.
Water? Yeah, that's a better point, but the market boom for bottled water is a very recent phenomena that's pretty unique. Don't know that we can extrapolate much from it.
re: stet
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
well people are lazy and will always pay $ for something that makes their life easier, so the bigger question is whether magic easy to use locked down system will always be faster and easier than pirating
is there anything that people have long paid a lot for that they've long been easily able to get for free in exactly the same form (i.e., without sacrificing perceptible quality)?
I would be hesitant to make any comparisons cause what we're talking about is fundamentally different type of economic activity than buying a toothbrush or whatever. or if you wanted an apt comparison it would have to be really weird, like what would you consider 'spread of information w/ zero transaction costs' pre-20th century?
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
activity than buying a toothbrush or whatever = activity like buying a toothbrush or whatever
what's the equivalent case on which your assumption is based? is there anything that people have long paid a lot for that they've long been easily able to get for free in exactly the same form (i.e., without sacrificing perceptible quality)?
Not that I can think of. Copies were always of lesser quality before digital so I do see your point. However, a huge number of people have always been willing to sacrifice some quality for a free copy of something. Torrents and the like are very similar in that (as I mentioned above) you're so likely to cop anything from television watermarks to Dutch subtitles that the option to purchase can always be the more enticing one.
On top of that, it's easy for us to assume that everyone knows how to install torrent software, find a torrent site, set up port forwarding on their router etc etc. For people who don't know how to do any of that, recording a DVD to VHS is infinitely more accessible.
I think we agree that there will always be ~pirates~, just as there will always be tech newbs who can't use the darknet, as well as people who always want to do the right and legal thing. The trick imo is to attract as many people as possible to the third group, in addition to chasing those in the first group with a big stick.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 12:21 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
That is not a reasonable scenario imo, given that button A does not and has never existed.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
like what would you consider 'spread of information w/ zero transaction costs' pre-20th century?
yeah, i agree and said something earlier. what we're seeing with file sharing can't be easily compared to other things because it's so radically different in kind. still think it's instructive to think about how few examples there are in the world of things we pay for that we could just as easily get for free.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
well when you phrase it like that, tons of stuff. I paid someone to make me a sandwich tonight (note: not subway) etc. etc. I think schlaf's right in principle, that people will pay for convenience, but the question is whether that convenience margin will always exist.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Think the margin is only getting wider. I have bought albums off iTunes on my phone when I already own them on CD and am too damn lazy to get out of bed and rip them and sync.
And the iPhone it's basically impossible to download MP3s outside the store, so any TV on the same model is never going to have a Button A
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also people still buy books when there are libraries. It only takes a small margin of hassle.
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have bought albums off iTunes on my phone when I already own them on CD and am too damn lazy to get out of bed and rip them and sync
i have done this (although not when i was in bed)
― HOOS steen is it anyway? (Lamp), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but will people still buy books when they can torrent them in 3 seconds / 'online borrow from the library' / etc. xp
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
but it will, imo. within the next decade, absent some massive intervention on behalf of copyright holders, i suspect that it will be much, much easier to find and download almost any kind of "content" imaginable. i mean, think about where we were a decade ago relative to where we are now. there's no reason to think those trends won't continue.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
bottled water
― rocognise gnome (remy bean), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Not that it's really important but, I closed my album share site down. After reading this thread and keeping in mind all of the great reissue labels doing great work, I really can't provide links with whole rips of records with a good conscience, even if they aren't in print. I'm going to redo my site and only post a few songs, with links of how to find the records if they are in print. I created it thinking people would go out and look for records and buy more if they knew there is more music to be found and discover. I don't really know anymore. I think I just ended up giving away a lot of free music.
― JacobSanders, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
/That is not a reasonable scenario imo, given that button A does not and has never existed./but it will, imo. within the next decade, absent some massive intervention on behalf of copyright holders, i suspect that it will be much, much easier to find and download almost any kind of "content" imaginable. i mean, think about where we were a decade ago relative to where we are now. there's no reason to think those trends won't continue.
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
It was arguably easier a decade ago with Napster than it has been with everything until Spotify came along. And it's legal.
Seems to me if you have the servers and software chops and content you need to make something equivalent to iTunes, you are either going to take them on and charge for it, or you are going to get sued into dust.
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
what! the dark underworld is better than ever xp
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can torrent some obscure french movie today
books in the library example is interesting. sandwich too. i'd argue that what we buy when we buy a book is not just a reading experience, but ownership. library does not offer that.
still, we do pay for a lot of services, even when we have the ability to do those things for ourselves. i'd argue, however, that we usually pay for services only when the work involved is substantial. therefore we pay people to prepare our food, but not to tie our shoes. difficulty levels on the internet more resemble the latter than the former.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dunno about that. You can buy and pay more for pre-grated cheese, ffs
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
iatee otm on the depth and capacity of the dark underworld of today vs. the napster era. so much more available, so much easier to find and get.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
okay, prepared food granted. lot of these examples are food-related, i notice. tempted so say that it proves more about people's willingness to cook than anything else.
bottled water covered a while back. its market dominance is a fairly recent phenomenon, and it's unique as far as i can tell. wouldn't bet a lot on that model.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
this might be a ridiculous question, but did the music or film industry ever have a problem with individuals selling used copies of their products?
― JacobSanders, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
I agree w/ you overall ct and I think in the long-run we can expect the convenience margin to shrink. like, when I was a kid, computers were this complicated crazy thing that my parents were afraid of, these days my dad sends me attachments from his iphone etc. etc. could I teach him how to dl obscure french film torrents in about 2 minutes? yes.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nowadays it's like a nightmare of finding the right tracker, getting an invite off someone, getting in, keeping yr ratio up, etc. will pay quite a lot to avoid all that. Oink was the high point for the dark side.
Usenet can gtf.
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
To continue the food analogy, I think this is a more accurate scenario:
A) you get off the couch, walk in to subway, have the sandwich artist make the sandwich to your specifications, pay for it and eat the sandwich
B) from the comfort of your couch, you pick up your tv remote, press a button, and katy perry drowns
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 19 January 2012 01:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 19 January 2012 02:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
some people seem to be vastly overstating the level of difficulty involved in dealing with torrents and the "dark net". For one thing, i'm not sure why you would even use torrents in most cases. You can get a download of the vast majority of albums in ten seconds with a .rar search in google and the same applies to movies more or less. It's really not that far off just pushing a button
― Number None, Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
could I teach him how to dl obscure french film torrents in about 2 minutes? yes.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 12:50 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Including the torrent client, the suite of codecs, the port forwarding, how to find a copy that has English audio/subtitles and how to avoid being sued? In two minutes?
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
ok like 5 mins tops
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
You can get a download of the vast majority of albums in ten seconds with a .rar search in google and the same applies to movies more or less. It's really not that far off just pushing a button
― Number None, Thursday, 19 January 2012 14:05 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
"Download NOW"click"ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT"click"Sign up NOW for PREMIUM with FAST downloads or click HERE for FREE DOWNLOAD"click"ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT"click"Download NOW"click"9.2 kb/s 4 hours remaining"wait"File downloaded"open"un film de Michael Bay"
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
you suck at the internet dude
― Number None, Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
my dad already downloaded 5 obscure french movies btw
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
he's pretty psyched
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Please Enter Captcha
― JacobSanders, Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
― JacobSanders, Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:48 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
yes they did, tried to go after used CD retailers in the 90's and that was just one of a long list of beefs
― sleeve, Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Recently I read something about them trying to shut down PIANOLAS, if that's true this has been going on a while
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/18325210185.shtml
If you're a student of copyright history, you know that the 1909 Copyright Act in the US was driven in large part due to fear over a new-fangled technology that was going to make copying music so easy that musicians wouldn't be able to make any money any more. Yes, that's right, that dastardly player piano, with its automated paper piano rolls that could play songs without musicians. The fear was so great that lots of lobbying was done of Congress, leading to the 1909 Copyright Act, which brought about compulsory licensing on mechanical rights.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
hell of too long; don't read, i beg you
in gaming, cross-platform incompatibility challenges the supposed moral and ethical arguments against piracy. or at least this one: "digital piracy represents theft, in the form of lost sales (or ~potential~ income)." like, say i know a guy that has copy of a game---we'll call it skymir, a spacestation rpg---that is not available for purchase on (ie is systematically incompatible with) his chosen platform. if it was, he'd have paid for it (this is a hypothetical that exerts no influence on the argument i'm making, fwiw).
anyway, he has this game, and it works. it works because someone modified their maybe-purchased, maybe-pirated copy of the game in such a way that it plays nice with the otherwise-incompatible gaming system, and this someone made it available on the internet, for free. so this guy downloads it, and likes it, and is then targeted by the company that made it, and charged with piracy. nb - i am not sure that this has even happened, but
we have to now consider who is guilty of what, and why it would be at all justifiable for the gaming company to feel aggrieved in any sense. is the guy guilty of piracy? not really: he downloaded what to him, via the magic of GUI abstraction, was a Complete and Functional application---it just worked. so Gaming Company can't rightly say that he even has Their Thing (plz, legal eagles, i dare you to wade into this thorny metaphysical mess). i suppose they could say that the guy was ~party~ to theft/piracy of Their Thing; prosecuting this would be like arresting people for accepting mix CDs from their friends that had just one track of pirated music that they knew was pirated. abetting!
also, the gaming company wasn't currently producing---and had no public plans for---Their Thing for the guy's platform. they did not lose a sale in this act of piracy. the gaming company's financial well-being has been impacted in ~no way at all~, unless you feel comfortable penalizing the guy for hurting the bottom-lines of all the platforms he didn't purchase at the time of his gaming platform decision.
ok so maybe it was an act of patent or trademark infringement. it'd be insane to say that the guy did it; is the guy that buys a pickup with calvin pissing on a FORD logo committing trademark infringement? or would it be copyright? what about someone that puts an exact-duplicate ford engine in a chevy and then sells it? is the ~buyer~ guilty of patent infringement? waht?
it all comes down to the assumption that digitally replicable stuff can be legitimately---fucking ontologically---commodified. the ACT OF EXPERIENCING some replication of human effort, somewhere, possibly at the exact same time as someone else, is not the same as the act of possessing a unit of material substance brought into circulation from necessarily limited reserves (nb this is not a gold std argument). fungible commodities may be interchangeable, but they cannot be duplicated, amplified, almost instantaneously, and at a cost (in another fungible commodity) that is mathematically insignificant. digital stuff can.
sorta lost my train of thought there but q e fukkin d i guess??
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
The devil's avocado would say that (a) he could have bought the console in question and the game, and (b) that IP infringement is IP infringement regardless of the motive or circumstance.
Now if you were to apply exactly the same argument to a game that's arbitrarily not allowed to be sold in, say, New Zealand, purely because the publisher couldn't be arsed making it available there AND took active measures to prevent its existence there in any form (including through the use of the console's region locking), the legal defence would be almost identical but you would be hard pressed to find a single person who would take sides against the person who got hold of it.
The reason I'm bringing that up is that the latter example is utterly indefensible, yet is single-handedly responsible for a healthy slice of the world's piracy.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/18/google-collected-4-5-million-anti-sopa-signatures-today/
a link on the Google homepage and thousands of shares have produced a mind-blowing 4.5 million signatures on their anti-SOPA petition.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
need to (a) stop (b) numbering everything
I think gbx's last paragraph is key
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
:-/
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 19 January 2012 03:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
gbx's philosophical argument is interesting, but i'm not sure it's convincing. we might argue that since a new thing (a duplicate digital copy) is necessarily created in the process of downloading a file, if the data being copied is someone else's intellectual property and they have not granted permission, then a form of infringement must have occurred. unauthorized copies of owned intellectual property have been manufactured and distributed. crucially, they have been "manufactured" not by a single bootlegger, but instead by everybody who has downloaded them. the closing ontological non-materiality argument is defeated by the same general logic we use to protect patents, trademarks and copyrights.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 05:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
Man, have I ever missed ILX.
Have we talked anywhere about how downloading shit illegally is fraught with all kinds of spyware risks?
― Raymond Cummings, Thursday, 19 January 2012 05:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Embarrassed to say that I just got around to signing that petition
― Raymond Cummings, Thursday, 19 January 2012 05:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
patents, trademarks and copyrights are about preventing someone else from profiting off yr intellectual/creative labor - the bigger picture problem is that nobody will be able to profit from some forms intellectual/creative labor
xp to ct
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 05:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
forms of
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 05:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
another take, not necessarily one I endorse but:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/internet-regulation-the-economics-of-piracy/
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 17:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Megaupload shut down, employees indicted!http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom-shut-company-15396031#.TxhxZ_m9YqR
― zappi, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^ Just coming in to post that.
― emil.y, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
zappi beat ned! neds lost it!
― Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Investigators said there was no connection between arrests in their two-year investigation and the political firestorm that erupted this week over a pending vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Seven people have been charged with online piracy crimes in an indictment unsealed in northern Virginia. Four of those suspects are already in custody, authorities said.
The four were arrested in New Zealand. Federal agents and other law enforcement agencies simultaneously moved to search bank records and server farms in multiple locations around the globe, authorities said. The charges include conspiracy to commit racketeering and criminal copyright infringement.
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Even I get caught up in work sometimes.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
its Neds internet, i just post in it
― zappi, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
always interesting to read Jason Lanier
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/sopa-boycotts-and-the-false-ideals-of-the-web.html
I join my colleagues in criticizing the bills. But our opposition has become so extreme that we are doing more harm than good to our own cause. Those rare tech companies that have come out in support of SOPA are not merely criticized but barred from industry events and subject to boycotts. We, the keepers of the flame of free speech, are banishing people for their speech.
― Milton Parker, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
last paragraph of that is devastating, I'd copy and paste but your first impression of it should be in context after the build up
― Milton Parker, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
been seeing a lot of people coming out against lanier on twitter - here's marc's take (@disquiet):
--
I have come to believe Jaron Lanier's opinions are less opinions than reactions. Here's his @nytimes piece on #SOPA: nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opi…
He says Google & Wikipedia have "stated nonpartisan missions"? Huh? Google has lobbyists and Wikipedia's open model is a political act.
Lanier: "The result is a chilling atmosphere, with people afraid to speak their minds." Reality: Internet thick with tweets/posts/memos.
Lanier (re: pro-SOPA corps): "We...are banishing people for their speech." Reality: (1) SOPA curtails speech. (2) Boycott is free speech.
― geeta, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
now this is confusing, i thought the megaupload/rapidshare type sites were exactly the ones where they needed SOPA to pass in order to shut them down.
― ciderpress, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
that was not the Megaupload news I was expecting to see, I only just heard about this one:
http://www.factmag.com/2012/01/19/swizz-beats-is-the-ceo-of-megaupload/
― dmr, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
FWIW I've never been against the shutting down of websites whose sole or primary purpose is pretty clearly infringement -- sites that do nothing but stream tv shows, torrent sites, etc. The law already provides significant weapons against these, although I guess their are limitations, e.g. difficulties of enforcing against non-US located websites. Strengthening the ability to go after those kinds of sites alone would be fine with me.
What it seems like the industry wants, though, is to push the costs of IP enforcement against individuals -- those who use non-infringement-exclusive sites -- onto the sites themselves. I don't really see why a site like youtube, which is not really designed with infringement as its primary purpose, should be the sole or primary bearer of enforcement costs of someone else's intellectual property rights.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
fuck i use megaupload for work and music projects quite a bit
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have come to believe Jaron Lanier's opinions are less opinions than reactions.
Well, yes of course. Lanier is a natural contrarian. But a very thoughtful and helpful one you can't write off. A boycott is a kind of free speech, and energizing when it's truly grass-roots and consumer based, but Lanier's more talking about Silicon Valley level business-to-business ostricism, not internet tweets. Marc's tweets are all reactions and don't address Lanier's final point.
I was all for the blackout because that is literally what it took to prevent SOPA -- even though support for it was already crumbling, I was pretty horrified by the list of people in the Senate still supporting this bill even yesterday morning. And it was interesting to see the people against it -- Tea Partiers leading the charge.
I just love how this bill doesn't fit neatly into the current political narratives, it's bigger than that
― Milton Parker, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
The wave of opposition to this bill is probably a great thing for the future of internet law, actually, because it seems like it means an end to that play-dumb "my grandkids use it" attitude of the old guard in congress. Internet legislation may finally have to get smarter.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
(an animated gif as an illustration on nytimes.com oped? surely that's a first)
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
what does 'open' mean when there are natural monopolies for various internet services? that's a good point. but ultimately his view of the future - "what if ordinary users routinely earned micropayments for their contributions?" - is fun to think about and it's an interesting philosophical argument, but I think it falls apart if you try and build an economic model out of it.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
(for the same reasons why you can't really come up w/ a 'right price' for a beatles mp3)
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
swizz beatz running megaupload has broken my brain so completely. i hope they make this whole fiasco into a science fiction movie
WSJ scoops the NYT on the FBI shutdown of megaupload:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204616504577171060611948408-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html
― geeta, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
wtf is the legal basis for arresting the owners of an online storage co.
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
among other things, the WSJ article notes that megaupload is incorporated in hong kong, and the four arrested were in new zealand!
― geeta, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
The indictment calls the company "a worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale.''
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
going after foreign nationals (and actually arresting them!) for distributing fucking ~movies~ on the internet seems...messed up.
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
those sites generally respond to c&d's too, they're just too high volume to police without someone requesting it
― ciderpress, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
statement from the US department of justice on megaupload, which lists the names of all seven who were indicted:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html
― geeta, Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, speaking generally, knowingly facilitating illegal activity is often held to be a crime in itself. hosting a gambling den in your house, even if you make no money doing so and aren't directly involved, is going to get you in no less trouble than gambling illegally.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is more akin to owning an 80-storey apartment block and getting arrested cos some of your tenants have got stolen goods under the bed
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16642369
― Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
good old Berne Convention, they can just come and hoik you wherever you may be for infringement in the US.
xp one of the charges is that they're not eligble for safe harbor because they didn't comply with DCMA takedown notices.
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
here is a link to a PDF of the entire 72-page-long indictment:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment
― geeta, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:03 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
the counterargument is that this is more like building and running a warehouse for storing stolen goods, even though some people stored goods they legit owned there too
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I didn't realise MegaUpload was the 13th biggest site on the internet. It's a bit scary that it can be so big and so fragile simultaneously.
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown)
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Came to cry about Megaupload ;_;
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
in any case, this seems properly insane and like some sort of weird counting coup.
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
RIP. I just downloaded something from Megaupload...a =Byrds bootleg.
― tylerw, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
fair enough. the truth, i guess, is that storage space is storage space and if your space is big enough then policing its use is gonna be an inexact science. it wd be very naive to expect megaupload or rapidshare to have become so big on the back of solely legal content but the idea of criminalising sites simply because they allow the possibility of illegal content storage looks pretty laughable at this stage in the game.
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Four people in New Zealand aren't laughing.
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
― tylerw, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
see?
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
No, but they haven't been convicted of anything yet either.
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
doesn't seem "laughable" to me at all. the prosecution seems pretty sensible, really.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
you're saying that existing file storage sites basically shdn't exist? cos that seems pretty unrealistic even if you consider it desirable
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm saying that it seems reasonable to prosecute file storage sites that reap substantial profits by blithely allowing themselves to become piracy engines. i'm not saying that file storage sites shouldn't exist or that they should bear full responsibility for what people choose to store on their servers, but if piracy is rampant on such a site and the site owners don't take reasonable, proactive steps to combat it, then i'd say that there's sufficient cause to at least attempt prosecution.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
how can a site as big as megaupload take proactive steps to combat it?
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
xps - If the principle here is carried through, then there's a possibility that will happen (whether or not it should happen). One middle ground might be to force storage sites to aggressively filter content the way Youtube does. Though if that becomes the cost of being an upload site, I'm not sure who will bother staying in the game.
― Angrrau Birds (seandalai), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
youtube's aggressive filtration requires a lot of resources
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yep, it's not something that many companies could put together.
― Angrrau Birds (seandalai), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it's pretty hard to disagree that deliberately profiting from other people's IP is a vile undertaking
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
register all users. block access to users who upload illegal content. delete all content uploaded by users who upload any illegal content. work with organizations like the RIAA and national governments to develop reasonable strategies for identifying illegally uploaded content (if they'll cooperate). etc.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's what i was thinking in terms of practicality. i suppose there might be many smaller, tightly run file storage sites but i assume financially it wouldn't be worth the candle. without a bill as draconian as SOPA this is just gonna be a cutting off hydra heads exercise tho i'd've thought.
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
contenderizer that is pure handwaving
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
If true, this:
For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file.
was pretty dumb of them. Maybe why they went after Megaupload rather than, say, Rapidshare, which seems to take stuff down a bit more often?
― The Eyeball Of Hull (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
it is, yes, and yet...a lot of pirated IP is full of IP stolen willy nilly from other people, too. still, we have a legal system to stop this happening so it's probly not a problem.
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
probably a dumb Q, but what is the difference between megaupload and say, mediafire or sendspace? is MU just the biggest?
― tylerw, Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
yep
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
the difference is YOU'RE NEXT
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Attention: The YSI Crew
― buzza, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah they're all basically the same: free filehosting with no login/signup required, and lots of shady ads/links to spyware if you click in the wrong place
― ciderpress, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha I had totally forgotten about the "YSI?" meme until now
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
I wonder if modest mickey is out of prison yet
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
megaupload happened to be the one that worked most easily and that had the fewest popups/porn ads so it was safe to use for work
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mediafire has a smaller file limit so it can't be used for large files like movies. Megaupload would have been top of the heap in direct downloads of movies i imagine, but in recent times Fileserve and Filesonic seem to be the market leaders. This doesn't really change much
― Number None, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mediafire has a smaller file limit so it can't be used for large files like movies.
"Part 1 of 14"
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but then you waste a lot of time when the 13th chunk turns out to be the one that got DMCA-removed
― ciderpress, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'd say "buyer beware" but you know what i mean
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:17 PM (46 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I had a pro photographer send me a 700MB vid file of my band via megaupload just this morning after he used some other service that didn't work. I went to forward the link to bandmates and it stopped working, I was like wtf.
megaupload was one of the most reliable, fastest, no hassle storage sites, gonna miss it.
― the star of many snuff films (Edward III), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
also I haven't read above but hopefully you all covered this:
The US Justice Department said that Megaupload's two co-founders Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz,
― the star of many snuff films (Edward III), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Number None, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
hulkshare was my go-to for a hot minute and then they went and fucked it upas i've gotten older, it's less about downloading and more about ease of uploading. WORK
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
also, as noted above, SPOTIFY
i much prefer spotify's catch and release system for listening to new music than hunting down twenty new albums a month, listening to them each twice and then throwing them somewhere down the well into the terabytesmorgasbord is much preferable
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't think it is. if MU had been more aggressive about creating an inhospitable space for illegal filesharing, then i suspect they wouldn't have been targeted for prosecution. then again, if they'd done this, they wouldn't have been the biggest fish in the pond. this suggests that this industry is financially dependent on its ability to enable piracy, which in turn justifies prosecution.
i don't doubt that one could create a useful filesharing site that would be relatively inhospitable to pirates. i only doubt that one could make much money doing so.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 20 January 2012 08:51 (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
This is all fine until someone has to produce a cheque book. Content industry bodies demand ISPs police the internet but refuse to fund the policing. Same everywhere.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
the issue comes down to proving that content is actually owned by the folks who are telling you to take it down. having worked at a company that was constantly trying to get content removed from websites, i can tell you it's a real hassle for both sides. and megaupload probably has had millions of albums uploaded both legally and illegally and i'm sure they complied when they were able, perhaps? it might just be a matter of being unable to keep up with the content and therefore folks were keen to just take down the whole operation.
― omar little, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
otm. One of the biggest problems now is that current systems of managing copyrights, issuance of rights etc. were not prepared with the internet in mind and are failing to keep up.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
not having used megaupload, did they have a content expiry policy? making that more aggressive (say, 48 hours) would probably have helped protect them
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
e.g. if you want to release a TV show on DVD and there's a four-second clip of a song in the background, sometimes it's so clunky to organise the rights and royalties for the snippet of audio that it's easier to just digitally paste it out xp
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Content industry bodies demand ISPs police the internet but refuse to fund the policing. Same everywhere.
Well, that's a familiar model, right? Regulatory bodes set the rules by which the the banking and finance industries must behave, but do not typically provide funding to help those companies identify and prevent violations. The US government doesn't give gun sellers money to run background checks, but it nonetheless demands that such checks be run.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
it comes down to megaupload saying "ok we'll take it down but we need to know that it belongs to you" and that shit takes time. i'm sure there are riaa drones who have the most miserable business and legal practices jobs who scour the internet for lady gaga uploads and have to draft takedown notices all day long.
― omar little, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
exactly, the literal "right to copy" starts to break down when the ability to copy becomes so trivial and low-cost. that's basically the whole deal we're trying to talk about.
(i've hesitated to write something like this for days now cos it seems so pedantic)
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
ct: I agree completely, but the content industries are such tight-arses that they insist ISPs voluntarily censor sites and foot the bill. Here in Aus this has been going around in circles for 3–4 years, and it never touches down because the ISPs (rightly imo) refuse to fund someone else's grievances.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
my job for awhile involved doing just that sort of thing with uploaded videos and film and i always felt it was a complete waste of time, b/c for every youtube or metacafe there are many others out there, and it doesn't matter. what we ended up doing was youtube's monetizing system had a built-in ID, so instead of the user who uploaded potentially making any revenue on views, the revenue went right to us and the video was left up.
― omar little, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
it comes down to megaupload saying "ok we'll take it down but we need to know that it belongs to you" and that shit takes time.
Yep. Wish I knew where I saw it now, but just a couple of weeks ago I read something about a new push to streamline this whole process with a new central right database, so that all content and IP ownership (worldwide?) can be identified quickly.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
central rights database
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
my guess is the future of the industry might come down to the riaa teaming up with sites like that and making money on hits. you know, fractions of pennies for each listen or w/e but better than nothing. can't beat em, join em.
― omar little, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
what we ended up doing was youtube's monetizing system had a built-in ID, so instead of the user who uploaded potentially making any revenue on views, the revenue went right to us and the video was left up.
oh wow
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
it IDed on either video or audio, only way users could fuck w/it was to alter the video somehow. if you ever see a youtube video that is slowed down a little bit, it might be because they're trying to dodge that system.
― omar little, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
In a sensible world, yes, but the RIAA and all int'l equivalents are far too greedy and old-fashioned to make it work. They're playing an all-or-nothing game by a very old set of rules.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's actually really popular that. YouTube's categorisation is in the realms of spooky -- we had a demo of it once, and it will catch snippets of things even if you try and deliberately obscure them by fucking w/the video.
Then they give you, Mr Rights Holder, this giant interface that shows all the stuff on YouTube that they reckon infringes your copyright, and you can either click through one by one taking them down, or whack a button that says "put ads on these and send me the income" xp
― stet, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
the literal "right to copy" starts to break down when the ability to copy becomes so trivial and low-cost. that's basically the whole deal we're trying to talk about.
not pedantic at all, imo. that's the crux, it doesn't get talked about much in such plain terms, and it's very hard to resolve. to what extend does (or can) the "right to copy" break down?
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
in the end, even that system had its faults and wasn't 100% but we caught most of them i believe.
xp i feel like the riaa will get to a point where they have to do it. barring a complete shutdown of the internet, there's no way to stop it.
― omar little, Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
otm, and I'm sure this is not news to anyone here but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Justice.gov is down, whitehouse.gov under fire too by Anonymous in retaliation
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
copyright.gov, RIAA, UniversalMusic, MPAA, all under attack right now
http://gizmodo.com/5877679
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Anon says fbi.gov is next
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
holy shit
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
nice work but I fail to see how it's going to help anyone ever
True, but the amount of fire-power is amazing
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Anonymous Anonymous @YourAnonNews
Incoming Database Dump. Get Ready #OpMegaupload
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Amazing firepower, absolutely, but it just gives the RIAA &c. an excuse to label everyone who's anti-SOPA a terrorist.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
and then we've bugger-all hope of stopping the legislation.
lol shots fired
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
hadopi.fr went down
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Amazing firepower, absolutely, but it just gives the RIAA &c. an excuse to label everyone who's anti-SOPA a terrorist ... and then we've bugger-all hope of stopping the legislation.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:04 PM (45 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
OTFM. turning this into a war isn't going to result in increased internet freedom for anyone.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
at least not in the short run
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
that did say "raging vagina tractors" rite xxp
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), vrijdag 20 januari 2012 0:07 (16 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
But today's extreme raid on Megaupload will?
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
Anonymous didn't start any war, the war has been going on for years already.
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
ct: yeah, it will just encourage govts to clamp down harder to stamp out the terrorists (and take us all down with them).
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
my this thread has gotten exciting
― sleeve, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
We are getting a taste of what happens if SOPA passes imo
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
yup. There's no way the MPAA can hire -all- of these 'hackers' in time.
― Milton Parker, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
well I was reading this as 'SOPA obviously not gonna pass at this point, megaupload / prob some other big busts are the consolation prize'
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yesterday I was thinking how short-sighted it was of the RIAA to belittle Wikipedia, given the sheer number of people who learn about the artists and albums they purchase by going straight to the Wikipedia pages. It's so daft. It's like if Sega were to write off EB Games as a waste of space.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
referring to this (thanks to Ned who put me onto it)
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Okay, if we can focus SOPA so that it specifically targets The Oatmeal and nothing else, I would encourage my rep/senator to vote for it
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
Really tired of the convential wisdom that Wikipedia is a terrible resource plagued by constant errors and made up "facts". Yes, of course any student or anyone that uses it as a sole source for any sort of professional research is an idiot and deserves what they get, but its a great resource to begin with and branch off from there.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
its a great resource to begin with and branch off from there.
Fucking otm. As with any resource, it's important to know how to use it, and how to use it includes checking the provided citations to ensure that facts are indeed facts.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
i've been telling some of my students: don't copy and paste, don't quote it, but you can use it to signpost you to stuff on the net that's perfectly solid
― the smell of Whiney's cheap perfume (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is what i was driving at upthread! duplication is so cheap, and so immediate, that it has inherently devalued the original product. which, in the case of movies, is something that's been a long time coming. mega-budget SFX aside, there is really no reason for movies to be as expensive to produce as they are right now. the economics are archaic, and built on the assumption that films require armies of people and materiel, and can only be shown in purpose built structures, etc. etc. digital technology hasn't just up-ended the distribution of media, it's also done the same to the actual production.
cross post with the apple thread re: FCP moving to a completely digital workflow. yeah ok some people still work with tape and need to conform to certain broadcast standards and yadda yadda yadda. who cares: we're all gonna be watching stuff digitally soon if we aren't already.
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, a close friend of mine was a teacher and always blasted wikipedia for being shoddy and i was like uh some of those articles have bibliographies with like 50 references. just because your stupid idiot students copied it doesn't make it a bad resource, it makes them bad researchers
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't consider the raid on megaupload "extreme", at least not yet
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
and wikipedia is probably the best single information resource humanity has ever devised
probably
they raided on snowboards that were dropped from helicopters
― iatee, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
pretty extreme if you ask me
Xtreme.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), vrijdag 20 januari 2012 0:39 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
You don't think it's extreme to raid and arrest them, instead of sueing them?
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Meanwhile, at Hulu Plus headquarters, non-stop high-fives are still being given.
― Cunga, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Cunga, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
given the laws they're accused of breaking, no
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'd expect anyone making a substantial profit by deliberately facilitating illegal activity to be arrested rather than sued
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), vrijdag 20 januari 2012 0:50 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Uhm, by that logic you will agree every raid by a government on people, just because they are accused of breaking a law.
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
people accused of breaking laws are typically arrested, yes. i have no problem with this, so long as the laws are reasonable, no excessive force or coercion are involved, and due process is upheld.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
Shouldn't a judge say if they broke a law or not? Is it not common practice to leave the website up until a judge rules it is illegal? Even if a judge would rule it wasn't illegal, the website's ruined already. If you think that is fair or common practice, good luck.
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's Orwellian
So is this a full internet hacker war now? Anonymous et al. taking down sites? RIAA, MPAA, BMI, etc?
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Cunga, Thursday, 19 January 2012 23:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
Anon saying they have 27,000 people participating now. I wouldn't call it a "full internet hacker war" though, the websites will be up again after the storm. But the size of the legion has surprised me; or rather, how dead simple it seems to be to bring down government websites like this.
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
china wishes it could do it
― Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker, Friday, 20 January 2012 00:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:57 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
while I completely agree with your sentiment, the fact that an indictment has been unsealed means (as far as I understand it, not being a lawyer) that a judge has signed off on whatever warrants were required for the actions taken - also note the high level of international cooperation here.
that arsnova article is really good, thanks for posting that
― sleeve, Friday, 20 January 2012 00:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
We're assuming a lot here. Perhaps there's incontrovertible proof that the Megaupload people were actively facilitating copyright infringement for profit. It's definitely out of step to go arresting a load of the people concerned, so imo it's worth at least seeing what comes out of this (xp cheers sleeve)
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ok, thanks sleeve, I didn't know a judge had decreed it (not too familiar with US law as it's different from here ~ ie. this wouldn't be possible to do in The Netherlands)
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
the megaupload thing kinda demonstrates why SOPA/etc is an overreach, since it's already obv perfectly possible for content industries to bring a case before govt authorities to physically shut down sites they want to shut down (the justice of this particular case which i am not versed in aside) without actually having to be able to terminate sites remotely the instant they see a kanye album.
― occupy the A train (difficult listening hour), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
Here's what Anonymous is up to: http://gawker.com/5877707/the-evil-new-tactic-behind-anonymous-massive-revenge-attack
― schwantz, Friday, 20 January 2012 00:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:57 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
well, if a suspected bootlegging or counterfeiting operation is raided (with a judge's authorization), it is not typically allowed to continue to operate until a conviction is obtained. businesses that are suspected of not just breaking the law but of being intrinsically criminal enterprises are routinely shut down.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
jonathan lamy of the RIAA misspells "blackout" as "blackrout" which makes me think that he talks like scooby doo
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
putting aside entirely the ethics of either anonymous attacking fbi.gov or the fbi shutting down megaupload... it's pretty exciting to watch!
― Mordy, Friday, 20 January 2012 00:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Thanks for the background Contenderizer
Holy shit @ Schwantz link tbh
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
warner music group? come on down
― bnw, Friday, 20 January 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Low Orbit Ion Cannonjust wanted to say that.
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
thanks for this post, Le Bateau Ivre. yeah there was enough in here to take them down for sure.
Other messages appear to indicate that employees knew how important copyrighted content was to their business. Content owners had a specific number of takedown requests they could make each day; in 2009, for instance, Time Warner was allowed to use the abuse tool to remove 2,500 links per day. When the company requested an increase, one employee suggested that "we can afford to be cooperative at current growth levels"— implying that if growth had not been so robust, takedowns should be limited. Kim Dotcom approved an increase to 5,000 takedowns a day.
― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 January 2012 00:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Low Orbit Ion Cannonjust wanted to say that.― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:25 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:25 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
sure sounds cooler than "ping"
― occupy the A train (difficult listening hour), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
it was also alleged they used the abuse tool to take down a bunch of links they had no ownership of whatsoever.
abused the abuse tool
― bnw, Friday, 20 January 2012 00:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
Aaaaaand fbi.gov is down
― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 20 January 2012 00:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
wow
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 20 January 2012 01:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
works fine for me
― call all destroyer, Friday, 20 January 2012 01:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
hah well the homepage loaded but that's it.
horrible website btw
― call all destroyer, Friday, 20 January 2012 01:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
i stopped using megavideo cuz they took down lynx so quick
― roborally.rar (Lamp), Friday, 20 January 2012 01:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
curious to see how the obama administration feels compelled to respond to this on monday, can't help but feel that by anonymous being anonymous they've shit the bed and we're gonna have a WAR ON INTERNET TERROR or some other such nonsense
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 January 2012 05:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
i didn't know about the swizz beatz connection! curiouser and curiouser.
― scott seward, Friday, 20 January 2012 05:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
rumor is that's just a distraction while 'just blaze' is hacking drones
― bnw, Friday, 20 January 2012 05:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
a friend of mine just approvingly posted this on facebook
http://maddox.xmission.com/
ugggghhhh
― teens of southwest denver (Z S), Friday, 20 January 2012 06:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
vlad of global revolution made the same argument in a roundtable i was in the other night, we were all kinda caught off guard, but its fits a certain line of thinking--'anything that makes things worse is a step towards sheeple waking up and revolting'
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 20 January 2012 06:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
radical nihilism
― Lamp, Friday, 20 January 2012 06:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
shitting on the subway = revolution
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 20 January 2012 06:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, but what's pathetic about that site is that it only shifts to the radical nihilism thing after they previously made the argument that nothing matters and it's not worth raising a fuss about SOPA in the first place and it's never going to pass and UDPATE: ok it passed but it had failed then the world would realize that...
― teens of southwest denver (Z S), Friday, 20 January 2012 06:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
The indictment states that the conspirators conducted their illegal operation using a business model expressly designed to promote uploading of the most popular copyrighted works for many millions of users to download. The indictment alleges that the site was structured to discourage the vast majority of its users from using Megaupload for long-term or personal storage by automatically deleting content that was not regularly downloaded. The conspirators further allegedly offered a rewards program that would provide users with financial incentives to upload popular content and drive web traffic to the site, often through user-generated websites known as linking sites. The conspirators allegedly paid users whom they specifically knew uploaded infringing content and publicized their links to users throughout the world.
In addition, by actively supporting the use of third-party linking sites to publicize infringing content, the conspirators did not need to publicize such content on the Megaupload site. Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content downloaded by its users.
As alleged in the indictment, the conspirators failed to terminate accounts of users with known copyright infringement, selectively complied with their obligations to remove copyrighted materials from their servers and deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed infringing content. For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file.
this is pretty damning tbh
― The Reverend, Friday, 20 January 2012 08:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file.
This is technically grey to me. One of the things file sharing and storage sites do is de-duplicate files. Eg, if you and I both upload an identical file, instead of storing two copies they store one and point us both at it. Dropbox does this, it's not uncommon.
So if someone gets a takedown notice on a copyrighted file being shared via a service like this -- should that file be disabled for everyone using the service? What if I am the rights holder and I have the file in my dropbox, and Joe McPirate has the same file in his. Does the takedown notice for McPirate mean *my* legitimate "copy" of the file also must be deleted?
― stet, Friday, 20 January 2012 11:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
The forfeiture bit at the end of the Megaupload indictment is amazing...
You will pay us $175m AND we'll seize the following 60 bank accounts AND we'll have yr Rolls, Maserati, Mercs, Harley, 108" TVs, £17k Sony camcorders and accumulated works of art, ta.
― Michael Jones, Friday, 20 January 2012 11:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
The conspirators further allegedly offered a rewards program that would provide users with financial incentives to upload popular content and drive web traffic to the site...the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function
This doesn't seem too dodgy to me. On the other hand it seems like there's easily enough evidence of them knowing about specific content and doing nothing about it that this probably doesn't matter.
― toby, Friday, 20 January 2012 13:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
The leaked list of cars seized was insane. Like, some 1 of 300-made Lamborghini SUV or some shit like that, among 20 crazy cars.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 January 2012 14:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait, they aren't gonna take the lotus are they? NOT THE LOTUS!!!!
― scott seward, Friday, 20 January 2012 14:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
"The conspirators"Is it true that an affidavit can use any designation for the accused parties? i.e. "The pirates", "Those clowns"
― Scrutable (Ówen P.), Friday, 20 January 2012 14:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Check out the plates on those cars.
― Michael Jones, Friday, 20 January 2012 14:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Who broke rateyourmusic? The FBI or Anonymous?
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 20 January 2012 14:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
xpost, Yeah, one plate was "GOD."
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 January 2012 14:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
okay, i post the lotus picture and now i find out that swizz was the "VP of creative design and global marketing" at Lotus!?? curiouser and curiouser...
― scott seward, Friday, 20 January 2012 15:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
he gets the blame for everything he does
― Your Host For The Top 25 Countdown for Metal Poll (Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker), Friday, 20 January 2012 15:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
never before occurred to me, but if you're a manufacturer of super high-end luxury or sports cars, yeah, you might want people with ties to hip hop in your marketing department
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 20 January 2012 15:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
SOPA now postponed fully in House, PIPA vote cancelled in Senate.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 January 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Chris Dodd sounding all conciliatory all of a sudden. Barely but even so.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 January 2012 15:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Megaupload.com employees Bram van der Kolk, also known as Bramos, left, Finn Batato,second from left, Mathias Ortmann and founder, former CEO and current chief innovation officer of Megaupload.com Kim Dotcom (also known as Kim Schmitz and Kim Tim Jim Vestor), right, appear in North Shore District Court in Auckland, New Zealand, Friday, Jan. 20, 2012. The four appeared in court in relation to arrests made to Megaupload.com, which is linked to a U.S. investigation into international copyright infringement and money laundering."
coincidentally, i went to high school with a Kim Tim Jim Vestor!
― scott seward, Friday, 20 January 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
NYT:
The police arrived at Dotcom Mansion in Auckland on Friday morning in two helicopters. Mr. Dotcom, a 37-year-old with dual Finnish and German citizenship, retreated into a safe room, and the police had to cut their way in. He was eventually arrested with a firearm close by that the police said appeared to be a shortened shotgun.
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 16:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol they really have to type "Mr. Dotcom"
― frogbs, Friday, 20 January 2012 16:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
None of the arrested were native NZers, it seems-- all finnish/german/dutch...
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 16:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dude was in his panic room with a sawed-off.
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 16:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
does anyone know what happened to the Oink webmaster?
― frogbs, Friday, 20 January 2012 16:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
he was found not guilty of all charges
― Your Host For The Top 25 Countdown for Metal Poll (Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker), Friday, 20 January 2012 16:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
is this where i post to get an oink invite
― lag∞n, Friday, 20 January 2012 16:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, January 20, 2012 4:07 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
for real wtf is this life he is leading
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 20 January 2012 16:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hiding in your panic room with a sawed off shotgun doesn't set you up very well for a "we didn't know anything we did was illegal" defense imho.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 20 January 2012 16:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
that is hella hip hop tho
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 January 2012 16:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
is he related to Dot Com from 30 rock
― dmr, Friday, 20 January 2012 16:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, in his defense, if you have a safe room, a) damn well everything in there will be "close by," whether a shotgun or can of beans and b) if you're going to bother with a safe room, you damn well likely will have a gun in there, too.
This is all weird, though. These alleged ancillary perps were holed up in a New Zealand mansion, up to no good in relation to an American file serving site run by a famous hip-hop producer?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 January 2012 16:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 20 January 2012 16:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
My grief (yesterday evening) at the death of MU is increasingly compensated by how much I love the details of this story...
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 17:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
sounds like it'll make one hell of a david fincher movie
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 20 January 2012 17:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
chubby jessica simpson is sooo WS
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 20 January 2012 17:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah is the idea there supposed to be that she's "fat"? Fuck a culture...
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 17:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
they should have disguised themselves as sheep and gone on the lam!
safe room reminding me of kindly drug dealer woman on sons of anarchy.
― scott seward, Friday, 20 January 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Wednesday’s black-out protesters are to Anonymous what Martin Luther King, Jr. was to Malcolm X."
um
http://t.co/XBb36GuV
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 20 January 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm On The Lamb But I Ain't No Sheep [makes boogie face]
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 17:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
man, kim dotcom is a piece of work
― the star of many snuff films (Edward III), Friday, 20 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
no one with that accent can be all bad!
― 51 fewer calories (Lamp), Friday, 20 January 2012 18:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, January 20, 2012 12:41 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
smh
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Friday, 20 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
it was on forbes so it must be true
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 January 2012 19:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
that writer is usually pretty good but i rolled my eyeballs so hard they gave me their wallet
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 20 January 2012 19:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i had to think a while about what on earth that meant!
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 20 January 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha Hoos
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 20 January 2012 19:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Saving that one for the swipe file, thx HOOS
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 20:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
the full quote really is even better
In fighting for the rights of the Internet ‘to be free,’ Wednesday’s black-out protesters are to Anonymous what Martin Luther King, Jr. was to Malcolm X. Or for comic book geeks, as Professor Xavier is to Magneto.
― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 January 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
"to be free" ha ha snark snark
― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 January 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
wtf is going on
― occupy the A train (difficult listening hour), Friday, 20 January 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
:(
― lag∞n, Friday, 20 January 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 January 2012 21:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
swizz nooooooooooooooooo
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 20 January 2012 21:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
i choose to believe
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 20 January 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I heard Dr. Dre is CEO. For real.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 January 2012 21:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Timbaland is a programmer.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 January 2012 21:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
And Merzbow is the engineer
― Another Wein bites the dust (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 20 January 2012 21:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
They just pay Merzbow to sit by a computer and upload stuff.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 January 2012 21:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
And with that 1000 cd boxset he had that can take a while!
― Another Wein bites the dust (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 20 January 2012 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Kindofblueremastered.rar actually = Merzbox Disc 144
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 21:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Umm LOLOL:
http://consumerist.com/2012/01/megaupload-seems-to-be-up-and-almost-ready-to-run-again-without-a-domain-name.html
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 January 2012 21:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
They hired Game to intern, but he just ended up following Dre around and doing everything he did two hours later.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 20 January 2012 21:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
BEWARE TO THE PISHING SITES!
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 January 2012 22:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 20 January 2012 22:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Another Wein bites the dust (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 20 January 2012 22:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Geoff Taylor, BPIThe attacks by hackers on the FBI, Department of Justice and creative industry and the recent protest by tech companies against new anti-piracy laws have exposed the dirty underbelly of the internet piracy economy.Anonymous accuse governments and the creative community of being "tyrants" for trying to prevent them stealing other people's work. This illustrates the extremism of much of the anti-copyright movement.Not only is it morally wrong to justify taking someone else's work for nothing, it ignores the simple truth that anything of value, including entertainment, takes time and money to create. One would hope that such naive views would carry little public influence. But they have some very powerful allies.Under the guise of fighting for their vision of an "open internet", some Silicon Valley behemoths have launched a high-profile campaign to oppose new US laws to tackle major pirate websites. As publicity stunts for this campaign, Wikipedia closed for a day and Google "censored" its doodle, asking their users to oppose the legislation.These large corporations argue that blocking access to some mass piracy sites amounts to Chinese-style censorship of free speech and will "break the internet" - ignoring that other types of illegal sites are routinely blocked, and people will always be free to express their points of view through the millions of perfectly legal websites that don't infringe copyright.But is the tech community's opposition to tackling piracy motivated by principle - or by profit?Many consumers see digital theft as a kind of victimless crime - musicians and film stars have loads of money, right?In fact, most musicians earn less than the national average income and everyone who works in the creative sector, from roadies to mastering engineers, is negatively affected by piracy. But the money that downloaders save by taking music, films and books for nothing is flowing silently into the pockets of large tech corporations.Online hosting services pay users to upload the most popular files and charge freeloaders for faster downloads.Search giants earn billions from online advertising, with searches for illegal free music and films a major driver of traffic.Broadband providers charge users for all the extra bandwidth they consume downloading stuff for free.The internet advertising industry earns commission from the ads on pirate sites, and brands reach a huge audience cheaply.This is the hidden internet piracy economy.Most of the internet companies that benefit from this routinely claim that they don't support piracy. They may well be sincere. Yet they consistently oppose every new measure to tackle it, and offer up no effective alternatives of their own.Long term, this cannot be the way forward.Apple's former chief executive, the late Steve Jobs, understood that the creative and technology industries should be partners, and that consumers benefit from better quality services as a result. Spotify and others have taken up the mantle and there are new examples to welcome, with Google and some ISPs launching their own digital music services.But if we want a digital economy that works, the big players on the internet need to kick their addiction to the money flowing from piracy. Like Steve Jobs, they need to show that they value other people's creativity as well as their own.Geoff Taylor is chief executive of the BPI - the trade body that represents the British recording industry.
The attacks by hackers on the FBI, Department of Justice and creative industry and the recent protest by tech companies against new anti-piracy laws have exposed the dirty underbelly of the internet piracy economy.
Anonymous accuse governments and the creative community of being "tyrants" for trying to prevent them stealing other people's work. This illustrates the extremism of much of the anti-copyright movement.
Not only is it morally wrong to justify taking someone else's work for nothing, it ignores the simple truth that anything of value, including entertainment, takes time and money to create. One would hope that such naive views would carry little public influence. But they have some very powerful allies.
Under the guise of fighting for their vision of an "open internet", some Silicon Valley behemoths have launched a high-profile campaign to oppose new US laws to tackle major pirate websites. As publicity stunts for this campaign, Wikipedia closed for a day and Google "censored" its doodle, asking their users to oppose the legislation.
These large corporations argue that blocking access to some mass piracy sites amounts to Chinese-style censorship of free speech and will "break the internet" - ignoring that other types of illegal sites are routinely blocked, and people will always be free to express their points of view through the millions of perfectly legal websites that don't infringe copyright.
But is the tech community's opposition to tackling piracy motivated by principle - or by profit?
Many consumers see digital theft as a kind of victimless crime - musicians and film stars have loads of money, right?
In fact, most musicians earn less than the national average income and everyone who works in the creative sector, from roadies to mastering engineers, is negatively affected by piracy. But the money that downloaders save by taking music, films and books for nothing is flowing silently into the pockets of large tech corporations.
Online hosting services pay users to upload the most popular files and charge freeloaders for faster downloads.
Search giants earn billions from online advertising, with searches for illegal free music and films a major driver of traffic.
Broadband providers charge users for all the extra bandwidth they consume downloading stuff for free.
The internet advertising industry earns commission from the ads on pirate sites, and brands reach a huge audience cheaply.
This is the hidden internet piracy economy.
Most of the internet companies that benefit from this routinely claim that they don't support piracy. They may well be sincere. Yet they consistently oppose every new measure to tackle it, and offer up no effective alternatives of their own.
Long term, this cannot be the way forward.
Apple's former chief executive, the late Steve Jobs, understood that the creative and technology industries should be partners, and that consumers benefit from better quality services as a result. Spotify and others have taken up the mantle and there are new examples to welcome, with Google and some ISPs launching their own digital music services.
But if we want a digital economy that works, the big players on the internet need to kick their addiction to the money flowing from piracy. Like Steve Jobs, they need to show that they value other people's creativity as well as their own.
Geoff Taylor is chief executive of the BPI - the trade body that represents the British recording industry.
― Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker, Friday, 20 January 2012 22:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
THAT'S what I was worried about i.e. dipshits like that guy tarnishing all of us with the terrorist brush
― Autumn Almanac, Friday, 20 January 2012 22:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
silicon valley behemoths like wikipedia
― occupy the A train (difficult listening hour), Friday, 20 January 2012 22:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Region blocking destroys his entire argument about paying for content btw, given geoblocking is the catalyst for a huge amount of piracy
― Autumn Almanac, Friday, 20 January 2012 22:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
But is the tech community's music/movie industry's opposition to tackling piracy motivated by principle - or by profit?
Anyone else see the move just a couple of days ago to retroactively extend the copyright of many public domain works?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 January 2012 22:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
Way early in this thread I commented on the Homeland Security connection in all this, and how it was upsetting. Nobody really gave a shit then.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 21 January 2012 17:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
WHAT NOW BOOTCHES
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 21 January 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
We gave many shits, we just didn't have a fresh quote to back it up.
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 21 January 2012 20:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw I was thinking baout that guy being from something called the British PHONOGRAPHIC Industry
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 21 January 2012 20:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-fights-shutdown-with-former-bill-clinton-attorney-120121/
Yesterday one of the “Mega” employees informed TorrentFreak that MegaUpload has hired top attorney Robert Bennett to lead the defense.Bennett is best known for defending President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.The New York attorney also represented other big names including Senator John McCain and President of the World Bank Group Paul Wolfowitz“We intend to vigorously defend against these charges.” was Bennett’s only comment thus far, but fireworks can be expected in the weeks to come.
Bennett is best known for defending President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.
The New York attorney also represented other big names including Senator John McCain and President of the World Bank Group Paul Wolfowitz
“We intend to vigorously defend against these charges.” was Bennett’s only comment thus far, but fireworks can be expected in the weeks to come.
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 21 January 2012 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Agreed. Given that the US charges were based entirely on the fact that some MU servers were on US soil, I'm curious as to whether their legal counsel will argue that all activity of servers outside the US cannot be entered as evidence in the case. Legal geekdom aside, this case promises to be more colourful than that for the Pirate Bay.
― doug watson, Saturday, 21 January 2012 23:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
from what i understand, if someone (esp if that someone is a foreign entity) is given a subpoena to provide documentation (server logs etc), they must provide
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Sunday, 22 January 2012 00:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
brb downloading popcorn
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Sunday, 22 January 2012 05:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
DennisThePerrin#Sen. Al Franken supports SOPA. He wins the Michael O'Donoghue Steel Needles With Real Sharp Points Plunged In His Eyes award.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 22 January 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
"All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files you have uploaded personally."
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
My current project is on Dropbox, worried tbh
― Autumn Almanac, Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
End of days for the mp3 blog.
― doug watson, Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
"All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files you have uploaded personally."
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:40 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
!
― The Reverend, Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dropbox should be okay for now (at least I really hope so, I use it for work all the time) since it never really seemed to catch on with filesharing blogs like filesonic and megauplaod did.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can't even access filesonic at all now.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
They're likely running the digital equivalent of flushing the powder down the toilet.
― doug watson, Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha ha!
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I pray they don't take down mediafire, which is what I use. Over the years I've built a collection of dozens of my recordings and hosted them there, and I'd be super pissed if it all went away.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
the advantage mediafire has is that they don't allow particularly large files.
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
So does this concentrate around searchable upload sites? For instance, wetransfer.com has become really popular (well, in my circle at least), but there you upload something and get a link through email. Others can't search through the files. Is that the new distinction?
― future debts collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Neither filesonic nor megaupload were searchable. Links to files on those sites were posted by the uploader (and frequently reposted) to filesharing blogs. Those links were picked up by the search engines, google, filetram, filestube, etc. Wetransfer links could be treated the same, though given the low profile of the host, probably wouldn't be picked up by the engines.
― doug watson, Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wow. All this without new legislation.
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/65920166.html?thread=11378137254#ixzz1kECktCvF
― doug watson, Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Pretty big win for the RIAA and MPAA anyway, huh?
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Damning:
Chris Dodd went on Fox News to explicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they'd better pass Hollywood's favorite legislation... or else:"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Huge, but temporary imo
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
Shutting down Megaupload would have been a short-term win. Getting most of Megaupload's competitors scared enough to shut down their own sites looks like something more. It won't stop torrenting or the low-key sharing of content but it's not going to be as easy for my next door neighbour to type "adele album .rar" into google and be listening to it five minutes later. Dedicated filesharers will continue but it might stop a percentage of the people doing it because it's convenient and hassle-free.
― Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
can't they just move the servers to senegal or something and not have to worry about the Feds?
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp yeah, it'll stop one distribution channel. As long as the demand exists, other channels will be developed.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
Temporary or no, its pretty huge for them to knock down one of the giants hard enough to scare a number of their peers into hiding.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh, definitely. Arguably the biggest shock wave since Napster.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
sharivari otm
it's not going to be as easy for my next door neighbour to type "adele album .rar" into google and be listening to it five minutes later.
this is probably for the best. the past few years of file-sharing have been at times glorious but also fucked up and excessive. the amount of music i was able to get a hold of in a small amount of time on something like soulseek ~5 years ago was incredible, and is still more than i could ever need. it'll be hard to see the new heights in convenience/speed reached by mediafire, megaupload, rapidshare go, but it's not as if music nerds don't have a vast cornucopia to fall back on
― flopson, Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
True dat. Completely coincidental, I bought two CDs last week.
― doug watson, Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
fwiw, I think the scariest portent of SOPA was/is the implications for sites like wikileaks. one could reasonably conclude that the internal memos of a corp are protected by copyright, and that a hosting site would be targeted for releasing them
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
otfm, and most likely one of the main reasons the US govt was prepared to toe the SOPA/PIPA line for so long.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
(censor the internet, claim it's about protecting jobs)
also some agent provocateur could easily bring an otherwise legit site to its knees just by sneaking in some copyrighted media. It's a kill switch for any site with user generated content
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
(isn't this what Scientology did?)
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
This US govt petition link appears to work: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Monday, 23 January 2012 00:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I bet there are a lot of people frantically downloading and burning stuff they weren't going to bother with just now, just in case.
― boxedjoy, Monday, 23 January 2012 00:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
i wondered why slsk was a little busier than usual
― bro-one (electricsound), Monday, 23 January 2012 00:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
slsk is still a thing? haha
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Monday, 23 January 2012 00:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not worried about adele.rar disappearing from a filesharing site, i'm fine with that. but this really freaks me out because, as noz pointed out on twitter, of all the music legally uploaded by its creators (including myself here) that can potentially just completely disappear when these sites go down, especially in corners of the musical landscape less interested in permanent archiving.
― The Reverend, Monday, 23 January 2012 01:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm bummed that this is, more than likely, also going to signal the death knell for legit blogs sharing perfectly legal music.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 01:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Looks like the Daily Show and Colbert Twitter feeds might have been hacked? Wait, yep, definitely have been.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
TheDailyShow The Daily ShowWe are not anonymous, however we do respect @anonops and @poisanon we are however twitter.com/ashpluspikachu <3 #stopACTA2 minutes ago
TheDailyShow The Daily ShowPlease ignore the previous tweet about ignoring the previous tweet. #ashpluspikachu @ASHplusPIKACHU That is all.11 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
TheDailyShow The Daily ShowIgnore our last several tweets. #HackedAgain14 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 01:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
i heard something about the person who uploaded the file would be able to access it?
― flopson, Monday, 23 January 2012 02:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
also rev, dont you have backups of your original music on your computer you could just put somewhere else?
― flopson, Monday, 23 January 2012 02:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'd imagine it would suck if he's got blog posts/links etc going to several years worth of material either way.
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 23 January 2012 03:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
hope this doesn't put an end to the blogs sharing rarer albums, but then I'm intrigued by the idea of music becoming rarer again... still free, but something you'd have to actually have to put a little time into hunting down. and perhaps music blogs might become more oriented around writing/reviewing again, serving as guides for torrent searches elsewhere
― Chris S, Monday, 23 January 2012 03:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
everything old will soon be old again
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Monday, 23 January 2012 04:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
flopson: of course, but that's not the point
― The Reverend, Monday, 23 January 2012 04:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
hard drives fail bro
― I Love Pedantry (D-40), Monday, 23 January 2012 04:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
it would be sad if all the filesharing sites went away -- i'm not a saint when it comes to downloading, but I'd say that over the years, probably 80% of what I've grabbed via rapidshare/mediafire/etc has been bootlegs or out of print stuff. guess i'd have to go back to trading cd-rs via snail mail?
― tylerw, Monday, 23 January 2012 15:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^
tylerw otm, thats pretty much how I am at this point
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
that really has been the magic of the filesharing era for me -- all of those bootlegs, things that will never be officially released, all just a download away. when i think of the huge amounts of $$ I spent in the 90s on physical bootlegs ...
― tylerw, Monday, 23 January 2012 15:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
really don't think all the filesharing sites will go away, the big ones might but cult blogs that upload bootlegs/oop will just put their stuff on smaller, more discreet ones.
― flopson, Monday, 23 January 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i guess that is what i'll do w/ my blog? hope mediafire doesn't disappear, that really seems like the most user-friendly one by far.
― tylerw, Monday, 23 January 2012 15:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey did anyone ever respond to my query re: file expiry on MegaUpload
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 23 January 2012 16:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
when i think of the huge amounts of $$ I spent in the 90s on physical bootlegs ...
^ this. The first few bootlegs I bought (on vinyl!) were relatively cheap, but in the CD era it was common to see single-disc boots go for $40-$75. This was all pre-CD-R, btw.
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Monday, 23 January 2012 16:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, when i got into it in the mid 90s, you'd see stuff in stores and think "i may never have the chance to get this ever again i need to buy it NOW". which is funny in this day & age.
― tylerw, Monday, 23 January 2012 16:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yep. I want to go back and smack my college freshman self and tell him that, no, you don't need to buy those $35 Nirvana Outcesticide boots. Just wait 6 years and you can download it all for free!
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 16:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
As an aside, it's interesting how most of the discussion of this bill among people I know tends to revolve around music, when I'd guess a lot of the impetus for it is really movies and streaming tv shows.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Monday, 23 January 2012 16:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, aside from my music geek friends, most people i know are saying "oh no, no more free movies and shows!" which is funny, i've never downloaded a movie or a tv show...
― tylerw, Monday, 23 January 2012 16:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, sports for the non-cable-having set is a big thing, I'd guess
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Monday, 23 January 2012 16:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey is there a story that could basically give me an idea of where SOPA/PIPA stands right at this moment in terms of its progress (or lack thereof)?
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 23 January 2012 16:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.pcworld.com/article/248525/sopa_pipa_stalled_meet_the_open_act.html
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 23 January 2012 16:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
(first thing I could find)
alex howard had a nice piece at o'reilly the other day, will try to find it for u
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 23 January 2012 17:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
first filesonic and now fileserve have disabled all file sharing capabilities...
― Talcum Mucker, Monday, 23 January 2012 17:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
― tylerw, Monday, January 23, 2012 10:59 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Tyler if you go speakeasy plz plz send me the secret door knock. (Pro tip, the feds know 'shave and a haircut')
So I guess the reason MF and RS are still running is b/c they only allow smaller file sizes?
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
secret door knock will be "marquee moon"'s opening drum fill fyi
― tylerw, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
(thanks orgasm explosion to your facehole!)
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol @ that Michael Jackson image - another thing that's been so messed up about this legislation is the enormous penalties they're trying to impose on everything. reminds me of the lawsuits the RIAA would impose on people who downloaded 20-30 MP3s where they'd seek 6-figures, arguing that "well, let's assume this person uploaded it 10 times, and then each of those people uploaded it 10 times, and we lost $15 on a sale to each one of those people, so you owe us half a million bucks".
if a person is found guilty of downloading a movie or an album illegally, shouldn't the penalty be more akin to shoplifting? do they really believe that a good 40% of the country deserves to be in jail?
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
A jail with an AWESOME digital music collection.
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
While I'm on board with you wrt to unreasonable punishment not matching the crime, I gotta jump back off when you try to legitimize it with the "everyone does it" argument.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is how we're all gonna be hearing the next kanye record guys
― tylerw, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean in that respect it's kind of like speeding, everyone does it and it should be punished - what I'm saying is if you're talking about something as widespread as filesharing perhaps you shouldn't be going for jail sentences?
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, yeah, five years in jail to watch an episode of Arrested Development is pretty insane. But, as is kinda the crux of the whole argument here, at some point you need to punish someone for making the content available illegally.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think you can get punished criminally for downloading content at this point, only for making it available.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
*THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE*
How much does Netflix/iTunes charge to dl an episode? That's a market rate.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
I understand this, I'm just saying that a lot of the talk around the people behind these bills tries to scare people into thinking this isn't the case at all and that, yes, you can do JAIL TIME for downloading one movie.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah no one's ever been punished for downloading music/movies/etc, only for sharing it.
― ciderpress, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's a pretty important distinction thats allowed the rapidshare/megaupload sites to become so popular as a filesharing medium, because you're essentially passing the liability from yourself to the hosting site when you share files through those. it's much safer than bittorrent.
― ciderpress, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh yeah, totally, I get that. But that isn't what the RIAA and MPAA want you to believe. I mean, remember those pre-trailer commercials at movies that showed the kid downloading one file and equating it to stealing a car?
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, if the car is a Kia
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), maandag 23 januari 2012 19:32 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
This is still Dutch law btw. Downloading is legal, uploading is illegal. When torrenting one does both obv. Secretary of Justice is trying to make downloading illegal too though
― future debts collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
that a free DL can be thought of as equivalent to a lost sale is crazy logic
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Monday, 23 January 2012 19:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://kotaku.com/5878245/jailed-megaupload-king-is-still-the-world-no-1-in-modern-warfare-3
― sleeve, Monday, 23 January 2012 19:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
exactly - i think people have only been sued/prosecuted for uploading thus far, but doesn't this bill or even the letter of the law before this state that d/ling was also heavily punishable? but yeah - "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR" sticks out as one of the worst ad campaigns of the last 20 years (since "home taping is killing music", at leat)
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Monday, 23 January 2012 19:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
hmm http://geeks.thedailywh.at/2012/01/23/mediafire-comments-on-megaupload-situation-of-the-day/
― tylerw, Monday, 23 January 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
It gets lost in the discussion that US copyright law originally didn't really have a malum se kind of rationale. It was more of an economic experiment. You can see this in the language of the copyright clause of the consitution -- it's not "stealing is bad" it's "this will encourage people to make more stuff" basically. So it's understandable that most people don't intuitively see copying a file as being the same as stealing physical property, because it's not really stealing so much as violating an exclusive legal right.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Monday, 23 January 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
any other industry would see that as a demand and try to exploit it btw
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Monday, 23 January 2012 22:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
a demand
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Monday, 23 January 2012 22:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
i am starting a metal band called MALUM SE....
― m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 01:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Unconfirmed "inside info" via OccupyMarines:
"MegaUpload - Closed.FileServe - Closing does not sell premium.FileJungle - Deleting files. Locked in the U.S.UploadStation - Locked in the U.S.FileSonic - The news is arbitrary (under FBI investigation).VideoBB - Closed! would disappear soon.Uploaded - Banned U.S. and the FBI went after the owners who are gone.FilePost - Deleting all material (so will leave executables, pdfs, txts)Videoz - closed and locked in the countries affiliated with the USA.4shared - Deleting files with copyright and waits in line at the FBI.MediaFire - Called to testify in the next 90 days and it will open doors pro FBIOrg torrent - could vanish with everything within 30 days "he is under criminal investigation"Network Share mIRC - awaiting the decision of the case to continue or terminate Torrent everything. P.S. mediafire has start deleting copyright protected files. Only left is the personal files."
― sleeve, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
https://plus.google.com/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111221airvinyl
^ worth thinking hard about imo
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
interesting
still, who's move evil UMC or Megaupload hmmmm
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry but lol @ the idea that megaupload was shutdown because of the threat of yet another diy online music distro scheme
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
man, everything's happening really really quickly now.
― this is funny u bitter dork (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm kind of excited about going back to the ol' I've got a list of my library, other person's got a list of their library, we trade MP3 CD-Rs through the mail...
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 22:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
(ie tape trading except with more stuff in the vessel)
Hmmm you know there's a provider conspicuously absent from that list xxxpost...
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, tape trading'd be ok with me, i guess! i just got a huge hard drive w/ a bunch of television bootlegs on it via the mail.
― tylerw, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
*casts creepy gaze in tyler's direction*
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's intense -- apparently every bootleg recording of the band from 1974-1978! And that was just the beginning of the hard drive. i couldn't deal with more...
― tylerw, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
That... makes me feel insane.
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
it is insane. look at this!Television 1974-00-00 Rehearsal In Ork Loft1974-00-00 Rehearsal In Ork Loft Videotape Soundtrack1974-08-00 Max’s Kansas City1974-00-00 Brian Eno Richard Williams Demos 1975-00-00 Early 1975 Unknown Location1975-00-00 Rehearsal In Ork Loft1975-01-00 CBGB1975-01-17 CBGB1975-03-23 CBGB1975-04-17 CBGB1975-06-00 CBGB1975-06-15 CBGB1975-07-00 CBGB1975-07-24 Piccadilly Inn1975-07-25 Piccadilly Inn1975-08-00 Demos1975-08-02 CBGB Summer Festival (Might be 1975-08-03)1975-08-02 CBGB Summer Festival (Might be 1975-08-03) (Alternate Source)1975-08-08 CBGB (only 3 songs)1975-10-17 Mother’s1975-10-27 Max’s1975-12-07 CBGB 1976-00-00 CBGB1976-01-14 CBGB1976-01-25 CBGB1976-01-25 CBGB (alternate source)1976-02-18 CBGB1976-03-11 CBGB1976-03-11 CBGB (alternate source)1976-03-11 CBGB (another alternate source)1976-03-12 CBGB1976-04-16 CBGB1976-06-30 CBGB1976-07-29 CBGB1976-07-30 CBGB1976-07-31 CBGB1976-12-00 CBGB1976-12-26 CBGB1976-12-28 CBGB1976-12-29 CBGB1976-12-30 CBGB1976-12-31 Palladium1977-00-00 CBGB1977-03-13 Masonic Auditorium, Detroit1977-04-05 Whisky A Go Go, Los Angeles1977-04-14 Whisky A Go Go, Los Angeles1977-06-03 Paradiso, Amsterdam1977-06-05 Auditoire Janson, Brussels1977-06-07 Olympia, Paris1977-06-15 Daddy’s Dance Hall, Copenhagen1977-06-17 Jarlateatern, Stockholm1977-08-08 Syncopation, Hartsdale1977-08-31 Syncopation, Hartsdale (first set)1977-08-31 Syncopation, Hartsdale (second set) 1978-00-00 Adventure Outtakes1978-00-00 Adventure Rough Mixes from Acetate1978-03-20 My Father’s Place1978-04-11 Glasgow, Scotland1978-04-17 Hammersmith Odeon, London1978-06-09 My Father’s Place1978-07-02 Earth Tavern, Portland1978-07-02 Earth Tavern, Portland (DIME mix source)1978-07-03 The Place, Seattle1978-07-03 The Place, Seattle (alternate source)1978-07-29 The Bottom Line
[sorry for thread derail]
― tylerw, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, I had to scan that list several times
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
rapidshare?
― future debts collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.fastcompany.com/1810967/rapidshare-lawyer-if-were-shut-down-like-megaupload-then-youtube-dropbox-and-apples-icloud-a
― doug watson, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm kind of excited about going back to the ol' I've got a list of my library, other person's got a list of their library, we trade MP3 CD-Rs through the mail...― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this. also looking forward to listening to all the rare music i've found thanks to the interwebs now that i won't be able to find any more.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm kinda looking forward to all of the free time I'll have in lieu of not searching, tagging or backing up files. Maybe I might even go for a walk, although I hear it's winter outside now.
― doug watson, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
dropbox is not searchable
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
i recognize that some aspects of the megaupload takedown are dubious but i don't think it's so terrible if the internet isn't a free lunch for music anymore. i mean i've gotten used to it as much as anyone (particularly when it comes to ultra-rare vinyl rips etc.) but i don't feel like it was owed to me and i always expected it to come tumbling down.
however i do depend on some of the more obscure P2P film sites where people share like german films from 1917 and indian TV documentaries from the 1970s -- stuff that no one would access to otherwise and that noone is likely to make an aggressive copyright claim on. i'd be sad if that came to an end. it bothers me that sites don't have a "if it's available commercially, don't share it" policy. by sharing, say, some criterion DVD they are opening themselves up to legitimate intellectual property disputes, but if they stuck w/ hyper-obscure stuff they'd probably be safe.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm decidedly not looking forward to having to send off to Argentina or Korea and getting CDs in the post six to eight weeks later like i did in 1999. As good as Spotify, iTunes and even torrents might be, they're pretty useless for a lot of foreign language stuff. One of the great things about music being freely available is that it broke down all the geographical barriers involved in distributing records. There's no technological reason paid-for downloads should be any different but it just hasn't happened.
The company i work for was one of the sponsors of SOPA and there's been some interesting debate on the internal social network. The chief of the tech department wrote an open letter, co-signed by dozens of authors, to the CEO to object.
― Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), woensdag 25 januari 2012 0:46 (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I'm following Ubuweb on twitter, and I love how they had a forebearing about all this. They keep saying lately, even before MU shutting down (but mostly because of the SOPA/PIPA threat): download! Download all you can. The cloud won't last, don't believe in everything being available all the time. Download and store it for yourself. Don't rely on file storage websites.
It came across a bit too paranoid at times for me but it was intruiging and right now they've the right on their side.
― future debts collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
honestly UBUweb kind of sucks in that they will post the work of living filmmakers that is otherwise available for rental from really economically marginal cooperatives... and will not take stuff down even when asked by the filmmakers themselves. so fuck an UBUweb.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
so they illustrate a number of facets of this issue iguessiswhatimsaying.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I did not know that, nor encountered anything like that. "Fuck an UBUweb" is a stretch though, seeing how much wonderful content they made available. Goldmine.
― future debts collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'd agree if they weren't so intransigent when it comes to removing stuff that they posted against the wishes of the artists.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
Le Bateau OTM, so glad I snagged all those old Mutantsounds posts that are now gone, maybe forever.
― sleeve, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
the ephemerality of all this appeals to me, maybe perversely. we can now look back to the last few years as a golden era of free musical obscurities. i mean, who cares if it's all yanked away? we can all move on to other things.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
reconnect with your families and shit.
I won't reference specific posts but there has been so much otm in this thread today. All this is the direct result of the fact that content industries cannot manufacture scarcity anymore, but continue to behave as though scarcity is still possible. A lot needs to change very quickly.
Yesterday in Australia, news broke that Quickflix (our pissweak version of Netflix) partnered with HBO in the US to deliver its content in Australia, 12 to 18 months after its US broadcast. Again, manufacturing scarcity at a time when there's no such thing. It's like the internet never happened.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
american media companies seem to really despise australia for some reason
― ‘Banksy bacon burgers’ and ‘Shepard Fairey Bread’ (electricsound), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
otm. The official line is that we're not big enough to give a shit about, but clearly we're big enough from them to go out of their way to geoblock us and blatantly overcharge us.
I should link one of the myriad reports I've read recently that states Australia has one of the highest concentrations of online piracy in the world.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
big enough from FOR them
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
still more otm there
― sleeve, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Autumn, does the same situation pretty much apply to NZ?
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
How do you kill the movie and TV industries? Or more precisely (since at this level, technological progress is probably predetermined) what is going to kill them? Mostly not what they like to believe is killing them, filesharing. What's going to kill movies and TV is what's already killing them: better ways to entertain people. So the best way to approach this problem is to ask yourself: what are people going to do for fun in 20 years instead of what they do now?
http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's even worse in NZ. Like Aus, NZ doesn't have Netflix or Hulu or Spotify, or anything like those services; it also has a draconian three-strikes law, which allows content owners to cut off the internet connections of those who are merely accused of online copyright infringement.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
So, by using geoblocks and similar techniques, the content industry is actually forcing many parts of the world into overpriced and delayed content, and then whingeing when their potential customers find a way around it.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw this is what I mean about piracy being a red herring. The companies who bankrolled SOPA and PIPA are not afraid of piracy, they're afraid of the impending death of their business structures. The vast majority of online piracy is conducted by people who have no way of getting what they want, and enterprising types who have figured out how to profit from that demand.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
FFS. So stupid.
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
The whole content industry is built entirely on distribution models of the past. The internet is rapidly doing away with the need for physical media, freight, warehousing, international divisions, brick & mortar retail, and so on. When all that goes – and it has to, sooner or later – jobs will be lost on a huge scale. It's a big game of Jenga that's got out of hand, basically.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
bingo bango bongo - the idea that a whole bunch of albums are readily downloadable on Japan iTunes but not in America is so ridiculous. like I'd easily plunk down $10 apiece for a ton of Japanese albums if only they were available; if it's between a slow, $60 import and piracy, well yeah
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
All this is the direct result of the fact that content industries cannot manufacture scarcity anymore, but continue to behave as though scarcity is still possible.
truth bomb
the internet and inexpensive digital production tools have totally obviated the need for the studio/major label system, and hollywood has realized this, and is scared. hollywood was built around the idea that movies required large amounts of Capital to be realized---you needed sound stages, big expensive cameras, and armies of people. plus pricey film duplication processes, projectors, and entire buildings given over to the experience of watching. only people that were already super wealthy could afford to invest in such an undertaking, and lo the movie mogul was born.
now a person can create a full-length film that looks and sounds just as PRO as a "real" movie with like $5000 of capital investment (i'm just talking camera + computer + software here). and they could distribute it, on the internet, immediately. hollywood really doesn't even have to exist anymore, nor should it.
the idea that any of this is actually about the protection of intellectual property ("no one will make art anymore!") is ludicrous.
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'd easily plunk down $10 apiece for a ton of Japanese albums if only they were available; if it's between a slow, $60 import and piracy, well yeah
That's exactly it. People will pay if the price is reasonable, and now more than ever customers and consumers know when they're being ripped off.
I subscribe to the New Yorker on my iPad. It costs me the same as it costs an American, and I get my copy the second it comes out in the US. I don't need to even go looking for illicit copies, because it's easy, instant and affordable.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
gbx 100% otm btw
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've always had issue with the RIAA's definition of 'ownership' when it comes to music. It'd be like if you bought a lawnmower from Sears, and they said you couldn't loan it to your friends for them to mow their lawn or you'd be heavily fined.
― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
cory doctorow finishing a book abt copyright
i am v much looking fwd to it
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think it's sorta interesting that for at least one ~guy i know~ the only reason he's seen any recent studio films is because there's no fucking way he's going to pay $15 to see like Role Models or w/e. it's not a "well i was GOING to but now it's free on the internet" situation, it's a "well i guess if it's free, but otherwise no thank you."
thing is, if i had an apple TV, i would probably rent 2.99 movies like mad. AA otm re: convenience. right now if i want to watch a movie on my borrowed insanely large TV (thanks sis) i can:1) walk a few blocks to the RedBox, which has nothing i want usually, because movies stink2) find a torrent, wait an hour or two for it to DL, convert it into a DVD burnable format, burn it, watch
what i'd really like is 3) beam directly to my television, in HD, for a few bucks. or at least allow iTunes to burn DVDs of movies i've actually purchased from them. i can't, and that's why i've only purchased one movie. i HAVE purchased several seasons worth of TV shows, though, why becuase they have them and are easier/faster than tracking down eps on the internet
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
thing is, if i had an apple TV, i would probably rent 2.99 movies like mad.
HD Apple TV movies cost us AU$5–6 to rent. It's a rip-off compared to what you're paying there, but it's still cheap enough and easy enough that we just do it without thinking. Why get off our arses and poke around torrent sites when we could be watching a perfect copy in 40 seconds?
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw what we have access to on the Apple TV is months behind what you get, so it's not an acceptable solution by any means.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh i'm sure
fwiw if anyone needs a startup, just make the film version of Bandcamp (which is what Vimeo ought to do, if they're smart). the Louis CK thing shows that its possible for that model to be successful.
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
The problem with the Louis CK/Radiohead model is that they got a leg up through the old media structures. That's not to say it isn't possible, it just takes different thinking and concentrated effort.
This article discusses how Charles Dickens embraced technology and responded to piracy, in particular this:
Dickens knew that he couldn’t expect either his or our government to do anything about stopping piracy, so he put in the effort himself to outcompete the pirates—he came to American shores and did reading circuits, building a face-to-face relationship with his fans. And he contracted with American publishers to offer inexpensive officially-endorsed (and royalty-paying) versions of his books.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's not really fair to say that with DYI electronics people could make avatar or even j. edgar. in fact it's wrong. you can make a reasonably nice-looking movie for cheaper than ever before. but not one with big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI, etc. hollywood still makes movies that nobody else can afford. and to a considerable extent those are the movies a lot of people around the globe still wants to see.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
"still wants to see" -- i sounds like popeye.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
So I've been kind of testing out the new landscape last night and tonight, looking for The Beach Boys' L.A. Light Album, an album that is OOP and impossible to find without shelling out triple figures for a used copy (of a shitty album no less!). Anyway, I've turned up tons of links, but they were all megaupload and obviously dead or from another site that voluntarily pulled 'em. So, no luck with this particular album so far.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
we should make that the official way to test the general availability of pirated music. "i deem it... the l.a. light album test."
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
On the one hand, it's awfully entitled to expect access to everything that has ever been released. On the other hand, if that expectation is not fed it leads directly to piracy. They can moan all they like but it's a fact.
Copyright owners need to look at how things have changed, understand that people will get what they want, and ask themselves whether or not they want to be paid for their work.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh god. Last sentence of first paragraph belongs at end of second paragraph.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
well do we really *need* avatar? is the pleasure that avatar brought to the world so great that it can't be replaced by other things?
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:09 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i was going to include the obvious avatar caveat, but since you brought it up: big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI are all really nice, but not at all necessary for film production. like, not even one of those. and to say that hollywood movies are the movies that people around the globe want to see is a little tautological: they're the only movies they can see!
big sets can be replaced by shooting on location---it's easier than ever to find already built structures/"scenes" within striking distance of population centers. obv that involves permits, travel, w/e, but i'd hazard that that is still markedly cheaper than building an exact duplicate of the 14th century manor (or dingy tokyo apartment or factory catwalk)that exists in the filmmaker's mind's eye. and cameras are tiny now, and can be variably lensed, so the constraints of maneuvering a dolly or a crane or w/e are becoming less important.
big stars are big by the same tautology as before---they're big because they're common currency all over the world...because they're the only people in films that get seen all over the world. who cares. they only command the prices they do (and therefore important to a film as it is an investment) because someone else stands to make ~even more money~ than what they're paid. after that someone has piled in a bunch of money. if you're making a cheap film, with cheap actors, then global recognition (ie - literal hundreds of millions of ppl giving a shit) is a pretty tertiary concern
extras---if you want a shitload of ppl to do exactly what you want them to (battle!) then yeah, maybe that's an issue. then again, you could probably get a bunch of college kids to do it free if you tell them they'll be in a movie. if you just want to simulate a busy place, shoot in a busy place (nb i have no idea if there are legal concerns here w/r/t waivers or something).
fancy CGI---thing is, not even that fancy CGI can address both the big set and extras problems. not as well as the real thing, but its not like a film needs great SFX (or even SFX equivalent to its contemporaries) to be worthwhile.
now, i'm not saying that non-hollywood films could make movies ~like~ hollywood movies. you can't make avatar ii with tom cruise and a thousand living breathing na'vi in front of a giant green screen on a sub-millions budget. i'm saying that, with digital reproduction/distribution, it's not a big deal.
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol, this might not be a bad idea! Honestly it just came to mind because I've never heard it and I've been reading Catch A Wave this week.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, that's commerce innit. If there's a way to pull in US$500m from a film that costs US$150m to make, such films will always be bankrolled. If people stop caring about lavish special effects and no longer shell out US$10–20 or whatever a cinema ticket costs now, they won't be made and few people will care.
Anyway, technology is advancing so quickly that the exact film Avatar would cost far, far less if it were made all over again in 2020.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
also 'making a $100+ million film' is not some universal art form that's going away - it's something that was really possible for very few people, in very few circumstances.
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean god, people only ever got excited about Avatar because it was made. The studios set a high expectation by promising the hugely expensive movies in the first place.
Also, looking at the artistry side of it: while Cameron and his band of merry designers were making Avatar, 99.999% of the world's creative minds were living on packet mi goreng.
xp YES SNAP
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
another way of looking at it is: if hollywood wants to make their hella pricey movies hella pricey, then they can make them more expensive to see (download on itunes or w/e). i'm sounding like a ron paul supporter here, but the "content market" ought to be as laissez faire as possible. make a $200M movie with big name actors? price it accordingly.
the fact that we've spent the last few decades spending the same to see terminator 2 as we did prime has some pretty weird implications for how movies have been made and distributed. the maker of a $20k film doesn't need to recoup that much to have made it worth their while---but if the basement for ticket prices is like $8, then they're going to have a tough time getting ppl to choose their thing over the latest, familiar hollywood vehicle. if they can sell it on some website where they can choose their sale price, then they have a better chance of getting bums in seats. imo Steam is a good example of this working, sorta (nb - i am not a gamer nerd, so maybe they are so bad and hated, but it seems like big deal games have big deal prices, and one guy in sweatpants games are more closely tied to the burger index).
that there will be losses due to pirating in any case seems like a reality to be faced, rather than one legislated away. most businesses already plan for this (eg a store knowing that employees steal shit), and extract a bit from the consumer---but not a lot. if it's easy to buy a movie (in the format i want to buy it in), and even just a bit harder to pirate it, i'm going to buy it. as will really, really a lot of other people.
what's funny is that hollywood was predicated on the lived experience of seeing a movie---go to the pictures! but they are somehow unable to adapt to the fact that most people watch and experience movies, most of the time, on things that are not movie screens. that ought to be their problem, not mine.
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
All true. I hardly ever see new films these days, because the films I want to see are not being made (or if they are, not released in Australia). They all just look like $100M+ abortions. Would not be sad to see that aspect of cinema collapse. Some of my favourite films, the 40s-50s noirs, are so great in part because their creators made a virtue of their budgetary constraints.
― Not only dermatologists hate her (James Morrison), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Basically, a system that conceives, funds and makes 'Battleship' can go and get fucked
― Not only dermatologists hate her (James Morrison), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not saying a movie needs any of those things to be good (have you ever read anything i've posted here?). i'm just saying there's a certain type of movie that requires giant cash infusions that isn't likely to be made by the guy down the street. and i don't just mean avatar or mission impossible or whatever.
and i honestly don't think this type of movie would be doomed to irrelevance if the current regime of manufactured scarcity and anti-piracy were to hold back. no doubt there are essential industrial factors here, like the crowding out of distribution channels of other types of films, etc. but i do think that stars are a big part of the attraction of filmgoing, as are the kinds of manufactured worlds or idealized representations that, yes, require outlays (tell me one movie made for less than $30 million that looks convincingly like a big hollywood picture).
i'm not defending (or condemning) this, i just think it's naive to suggest that new technologies left to their own devices would completely shatter the hold the major studios--or functional equivalents of the major studios--have over the film marketplace.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
that ought to be their problem, not mine.
This is utterly utterly otm, and sums up the entire situation imo.
Also I genuinely think that in 50 years' time people will look back on this era as hilariously lavish and over the top. 'They used to spend WHAT on making movies??'
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
new tech won't, $ will
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
I hate most new films as much as anyone, but can anyone honestly name even 10 truly DIY films that are any good?
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
people who watch diy films probably can
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it will if they resist for long enough.
bwt gbx's suggestion of price tiering for movies with expensive budgets is not unlike the price tiering iTunes uses for music right now, e.g. singles and popular songs cost ~25% more than standard album tracks. It seems to be working for music, so I see no reason it couldn't work for movies. People already spend a fortune on home cinemas and Blu-ray special 48-disc editions of Things Exploding II; it's certainly within the means of those people to pay US$30 to see it in a cinema.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
xpost and WHO ARE THOSE PEOPLE
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dunno. people who make them? morbs maybe?
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
This is just one example, but I dug 'Monsters' more than almost any SFX-heavy film from the last couple of years, and it was made for half a million dollars. And so now the director's been hired to do the latest attempt to remake Godzilla, which will probably cost 200x as much and be less good.
― Not only dermatologists hate her (James Morrison), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Thinking needs to change completely. If you take a linear collection of movies made to increasingly large budgets (I dunno, Paranormal Activity on one side and Avatar on the other) and try to work out where the future will fit, you're still thinking in terms of what a movie is today and how it's made today. Without getting wanky I think a new format will emerge that sits somewhere between today's cinema and Breaking Bad-style television. Maybe episodic films, I dunno, but a format that makes sense for internet distribution.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I agree w/ dis ^
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
the best way to get people to pay for something / want to watch live is tense episodic viewing
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
i.e. soap operas <--
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
wellll what are you defining as DIY?
― # (Lamp), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
i agree with this! kinda
basically, what i've said itt (some of it above the fold i think) is thata) piracy does not affect, in a moral or financial sense, the livelihood of hollywood in a way that merits the legislation imposed, or even currently in place.b) to say that it does requires some pretty enthusiastic ontological contortions about what it means to buy or own something, and i think SOPA forced a discussion of how ridiculous those really lookc) the literally fantastic claims made by big content (<--useful but annoying euphemism) about the value of the stuff they make are based on an archaic production and distribution model that is not in any way necessary for people to be able to make and watch stuff they like on a glowing squared) SOPA would give the US gov't an internet kill switch based entirely on the hypothetical grievances and warped reality of some really rich dudes that want to stay that way
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
many xps
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
imposed = proposed
d) SOPA would give the US gov't an internet kill switch based entirely on the hypothetical grievances and warped reality of some really rich dudes that want to stay that way
It REALLY pissed me off when the SOPA/PIPA sponsors were claiming it was all to protect the artists, when the vast majority of artists were absolutely not backing them up. The only artists I'm aware of who see piracy as a genuine threat are essentially just more really rich dudes (e.g. Bono, Prince, the Lars dude out of Metallica) who are terrified that their massive cash piles will diminish. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
I think it's time that artistic endeavours weren't locked into a structure run by the least artistic people on the planet.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Regarding budgets of films, look at Let the Right One in and Girl with a Dragon Tattoo.
The original Swedish films cost 4.5 and 13 million $US to make.The US remakes cost 20 and 90 million $US to do--incredibly inflated budgets in order to make something that already existed.
A piece of shit like The Happening, with no decent effects, and not much in the way of star power, cost $60 million.
Above and beyond DIY films, you can make decent movies for a few million dollars or less. Hollywood has ridiculously inflated the costs of everything, and now can't see their way to making good films for sensible money.
― Not only dermatologists hate her (James Morrison), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sorry, hit submit too early.
My point is that if you can put together a decent film for around $10 million, piracy as much less of a threat in the first place, because there is just not the vast budget that needs recouping in the first place.
― Not only dermatologists hate her (James Morrison), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, and they use those huge budgets to calculate the 'losses' incurred by piracy. That's awfully like building a 65-lane highway from Brussels to Antwerp and hoping that 65 lanes' worth of Belgians will use it.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
but scratch 'hoping' and sub 'expecting'
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw I'm eternally grateful that you guys are happy to discuss these points without assuming that every SOPA opponent hearts piracy.
― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's just it. I would be thrilled to pay money to see films I like. I spend a fortune on books when I could be pirating the e-versions. I download music to see if I like it, and if I do I buy the CD.
― Not only dermatologists hate her (James Morrison), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Between Spotify and YouTube there is no reason for me to download illicit/non-sanctioned leaks.
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
^
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
How many of those Youtube leaks are unsanctioned, though? It is one of the largest holders of illegally distributed music in the world. The labels have just been slack in getting them to stop. If the album issue is dealt with, I can't see a reason why they would not target unofficial video streams properly next.
― Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 07:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Things Exploding II
it's a shame they had to piss all over things exploding by making such an unworthy sequel.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 08:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
looking for The Beach Boys' L.A. Light Album
found this on rapidshare via a filestube search, fwiw
― ban opinions (reddening), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 08:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also worth bearing in mind, if i'm the CEO of Sony or Universal, i'd be thinking "a vast percentage of my revenue is reliant on two services (iTunes and Spotify) that pay me next to nothing and are, ultimately, looking to replace me in the future:". If they think the adele.rar problem has been solved, i'm sure they're going to look into the feasibility of taking all their music off those services and providing their own, in-house replacements.
― Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 08:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
they did try that more than a few times about 10 years ago as i recall, and it got them nowhere.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 08:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, something is still there but afaik not enough people have been using it.
Hopefully even they understand that a common shopfront/cloud/whatever is the only way to make it work.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 08:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
The one they had before was dreadful, though. They'll have learned lessons. The technology has developed as well. At the very least, they're in a much stronger position to negotiate on price - driving up costs to the end user.
Book publishers are terrified of Apple / Amazon and the idea of direct-to-consumer sales. It's not such a huge issue with music at the moment but it might be in the future.
― Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 08:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Kevin John Bozelka, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 09:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
All I can say is that your typical 30-second commercial in the year 2012 tends to be more impressive visually than the bulk of movies that were made even 20 years ago. Costs have to go down.
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 14:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hmmm, I'll look again tonight, but I found some rapidshare links in the same way, but they were all dead.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
― get ready for the banter (NotEnough), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
tons of results for it on $1$k
― tanuki, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
I hate to burst all of your bubbles, but most moviegoers want to see Things Exploding II, not Uncle Banh Mi Who Can Remember Past Lunch. Things Exploding II is what's being pirated en masse, and it's what studios are arguably losing money on due to piracy. If you don't care, that's fine, but let's not confuse taste with economics.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hurting 2 otm
I haven't used s1sk in forever.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think the point is that the $200m blockbuster will probably go away in 10 years (or be made for much less), while there will always be decent-to-great movies made in the $2-20m range?
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean if widespread piracy is going to stop Avatar II or Bad Boys III from getting made, who really suffers there
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
We all suffer if Bad Boys III never gets made.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
well people who work in certain industries in hollywood that depend on high budgets (special effects, etc.) suffer
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Americans will forget the blockbusters of yore as they come to better appreciate the depth and poignance of George Clooney midlife crisis pictures.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's not really fair to say that with DYI electronics people could make avatar or even j. edgar. in fact it's wrong. you can make a reasonably nice-looking movie for cheaper than ever before. but not one with big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI, etc.
Consumer-level 3D packages are pretty damn powerful. Blender -- which is open source and completely free -- has actually been used to make entirely CGI movies. All it takes is some training and the willingness to wait for renders.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 16:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
...and the willingness to wait for renders
this eliminates a good chunk of the population.
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
A good chunk of the population probably wouldn't decide to make a CGI movie from the get-go.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
I get stuck on this same point in re music a lot, and it goes even moreso for movies -- there is a lot more to creating a film (or an album) than the technology used to make it. Yes, maybe there are cheap cameras and cheap CGI programs that do what expensive ones used to, but where are you going to get top quality cinematographers? Where are you going to get storyboard artists and programmers and trained actors and all that sort of thing? Where are you going to find the time it makes to create something really good, polished, etc.? How do you imagine everyone involved feeding and clothing themselves while working on a film full-time? Or do you think great films will be made in spare time by people with day jobs? And how do you expect these films to be brought to market? I keep waiting for there to be a single great DIY film that reaches a large audience solely through word of mouth, with no publicity, no marketing, etc.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's not gonna happen as long as they're competiting with movies w/ $100 million marketing budgets and there's one theater in town
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
and, when a DIY film does get some word-of-mouth traction, it ends up w/ a marketing budget
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
reaches a large audience solely through word of mouth, with no publicity, no marketing, etc.
I don't see how this is possible. Maybe through the internet something like that could happen in a decade or so, but marketing is pretty much everything in the world of movies.
I haven't really seen a full-length film but I've seen lots of short films (anywhere from a few mins to half an hour) made by competent people, technically good-looking, good-sounding, inventive with camera work and cuts, storyline, etc. All made for exactly 0 dollars.
Without a doubt having professional experience is a huge boon to such a project, but natural talent and inclination counts for something too.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I haven't really seen a full-length DIY film
Hurting its not like movies are going to suddenly gross $0 on opening weekend
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
And if they do, and the entire movie system collapses, DIY filmmakers can hire the top quality cinematographers/storyboard artists/actors/etc at super low rates. They'll be looking for work.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Birdemic was made for only $10,000 - how can these people complain?
― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:18 AM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
well that's something to cheer... /sarcasm
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
no bubbles were burst over here imo
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
All made for exactly 0 dollars.
nothing is made for 0 dollars fyi
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
what about love
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
also studios aren't losing money so much as they are simply making less. the "loss" of hypothetical, potential sales isn't the same thing as theft, and the fact that copyright law (and CW) elides that distinction is deeply problematic
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also, what Shakey said. If nothing else, "time spent doing love/vanity project X" is "time not spent earning $$$ doing something else."
― You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, January 25, 2012 2:21 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I don't think copyright law really "elides that distinction." There's a reason it's called "infringement" and not "theft," -- you're not stealing, you're infringing on a private legal right. I agree that illegal downloads:lost sales is not a 1:1 ratio, but this avoids the fact that it's clearly not a 1:0 ratio either.
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
Cinema attendance is not showing any signs of dying anywhere in the world afaik
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp: ha I was going to say, if there is one venue that you can usually count on to be irritatingly precise and pedantic in its use of language, it's the field of law
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also marketing is how you stand out from the pack, whatever the pack is, so $0 marketing is silly unless you're lottery-level lucky xp
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
the accounting is further vexed by the fact that some illegal downloads actually lead to sales (discovering a new artist) and that "sales" is vaguely defined (did a DL prevent a DVD sale or a movie ticket sale?)
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
cinema attendance has been declining for years
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
I really should ask you before stating any revenue facts
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
digital reproduction has made the whole ontology of content/copyright so ~weird~ that I think that the solution will have to be a wholesale revision on what copyright really means, and whether it's even useful
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
fucking otm
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
/Cinema attendance is not showing any signs of dying anywhere in the world afaik/cinema attendance has been declining for years
and DVD sales have been booming, yes? like isn't that how studios make their money now?
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
imo copyright has to exist, but in its current form it's being exploited by too many opportunists xp
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 26 January 2012 06:54 (14 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Profits are certainly healthy, I've read more times than I can count that Hollywood had its highest grossing year ever.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
as far as we know, for the foreseeable future people will pay for 'the experience' of seeing something in a theater. perhaps it's a little hard to judge how much they value that experience, because if you want to see avatar II the week it comes out, you don't have the choice to rent it or see it in theaters. but even outside of the short-term exclusivity thing, people do seem to be willing to pay a certain premium for the theater-experience.
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
hollywood always has its highest grossing year ever cause they don't adjust for inflation iirc
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
not 'always' but it's not strange for numbers to get bigger over time in a country w/ population growth and any amount of inflation
dvd sales are actually way down and blu-ray hasnt been as widely adopted or as a popular which is really part of the problem for the MEDIA CONGLOMERATES since streaming/digital revenues are p small atm as well
― sisqó inferno (Lamp), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
people do seem to be willing to pay a certain premium for the theater-experience.
This puts paid to the notion that SCREENERS will destroy Hollywood, I mean honestly, perfect copy presented in 7 channel Dolby or whatever v. squinting at a steadycam rip with muffled sound, no contest ffs.
btw now is probably a good time to mention that cinemas may have other attendance problems e.g. Ebert's recent column/opinion that independent cinemas don't allow people to talk through movies and ruin it for everyone.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
again this whole "problem" is predicated on a delivery system that has been rendered obsolete: films used to be distributed, in limited supply, in a physical format that was expensive to reproduce. they were commodified. and copyright afaik was intended to protect the means of production, not content. I think
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
again this whole "problem" is predicated on a delivery system that has been rendered obsolete
This is the core issue btw. Discussion of profits etc is nice, but the puzzle is working out how to make the new medium profitable, not getting hung up on old models.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Geoffrey Rush is on the telly right now (he just got Australian of the Year) saying that Hollywood isn't the be-all and end-all of cinema. People like this bloke are proof that art in cinema is not under threat, much less dying.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
ticket price inflation yo
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
academy award winner Geoffrey Rush can afford to say those things lol
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
seats getting more expensive only means more money if they make more $ than they lose from people not going
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
According to this, ticket sales rose from 1995 to a peak in 2002, and have steadily declined ever since, from 1.58 billion tickets in 2002 to 1.21 billion in 2011. Revenue peaked in 2010 and is now declining.
― You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
it doesn't look like that's adjusted for inflation?
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
the best measure would be per capita + adjusted for inflation
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
obviously the picture's even worse when adjusted for inflation
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
as w/ adjusting per capita
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol statistics
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's important! there are 50 million more people in america today than in 1995 so even when # of tickets sold is the same, that's a considerable drop in the 'average times someone sees a movie per year'
― iatee, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
also gross is not profit, fyi
― frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's important!
no I mean statistics can be plied in any direction
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
show me some statistics indicating that the movie industry is not in decline then
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
sigh
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mutant Sounds is moving its whole 'back catalogue' to Righthaven, thus not giving up the fight:
http://mutant-sounds.blogspot.com/2012/01/upload-solutions-are-in-works.html
― future debts collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
has cinema attendance really been declining? in certain places (like russia) it cratered for a while and now is slowly coming back. in china (like everything else) it is exponentially increasing. for that last reason alone i'd say worldwide cinema attendance is probably up.
in the states i'm not sure. there might be a small overall decline in the number of tickets sold, although i'm not sure. i get the feeling it bottomed out in the early 1990s (after a previous bottoming out in the late 1960s/early 1970s) and has been gradually creeping back.
what has changed is HOW people go to the movies. the majority of the profits seem to be increasingly shared among fewer films, opening weekends are now almost everything, etc.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's the other thing, studios screaming 'PIRACY!!' every time a profit statement dips isn't helpful at all. I mean christ, hello, GFC, collapse of the eurozone etc are far more likely to impact (in one way or another) discretionary spending.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
in the states i'm not sure. there might be a small overall decline in the number of tickets sold, although i'm not sure
number of tickets sold has been steadily declining in the states for over a decade, as noted above.
curve oddly mirrors the decline in CD sales
― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
there was a slight rebound in the avatar year because it was such a megablockbuster but yes the downward trend in the us is real (also for dvds)
― buzza, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Everyone has seen this already?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
It's often in the industry's best interest to show they aren't making any money, even if they are making millions and millions in real profit.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes for sure, but production budgets and marketing expenses are often much higher than the figures you see reported in the media
― buzza, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
number of tickets sold has been steadily declining in the states for over a decade, as noted