Posts by Andrew Orlowski 1435 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
"The ORG were facing a group of large, rich businesses, headed by rich powerful people who knew how to use the lobby system, the old boy network, and who were/are in a position to make large contributions to political parties. It was no contest."
The conspiracy theory again. Maybe they're all Masons, too?
The photographers foes were more powerful than the music industry - and they won.
hi Liam - A good fit? Depends on what you're trying to fit, where.
Ask yourself if the Nokia N97 mini and the X6 for example would be more or less attractive to punters if they had run WebOS?
I think they would be great phones and would be flying off the shelves right now.
"WebOS is a gem & well worth it."
If Nokia is in the business of selling phones, then WebOS is a good fit. With Symbian replacing S40, Linux for netbooks and set-top boxes, it couldn't work out better.
David > " people should be able to make MORE money from Music"
OK...
David > "...on the proviso"
Yes, there's always a proviso. I'm not sure why you think either of us in a position of authority to set down such restrictions on what kind of transactions are permissable. You need to justify it, so perhaps you can elaborate using the following example.
Imagine you're in a medium-sized act that stands a good chance of being very successful. Say, where Florence and the Machine about a year to 18 months ago.
Which of these would you permit the band to engage in?
• Hire professional management for the band?
• Joining a performance rights society for collective bargaining? Or would they have to negotiate their radio, TV airplay individually?
• Employing street teams? Or would they have to pound the pavement themselves?
• Professional digital marketing agencies? Or would the band have to be on Twitter all day?
I hear what you're saying, the music business failed to make the supply side reforms.
There are lots of people interested in what kind of service you actually would be willing to take up, that's for sure. Within the scope of "any music on any device, anywhere", lots of permutations are possible. I wouldn't want or need unlimited downloads for example.
But if your willingness to spend is genuinely zero, though, I don't think anybody's going to listen to your opinion. That's why the Pirates are pissing up a wall.
Aside:
> The BBC has shown what's needed with the iPlayer, but does the any other media company embrace this idea? <
I thought everyone does an iPlayer now? ITVPlayer, 4oD etc. What's Spotify?
Define "justice". Independents just want access to markets and capital - you're not suggesting quotas, are you?
One very interesting thing is that the city likes independent operators - labels, artists, publishers, managers etc and wishes the music business looked more like Silicon Valley, so they could invest in people with a talent-spotting record, or the talent itself. Currently bets like this are taken within the major labels.
" Nearly all comments from the freetards suggest... overpaid executives "
Yes, but that's just an argument of convenience, that two wrongs make a right. People use the same logic pinching sweets from WH Smiths vs Mr Patel's Newsagent. There's also an intellectual prejudice against anyone making money from music. Maybe they should just become vegans, and live in a yurt.
The deal is to come up with new services. If they don't, they may not get any technical measures at all.
"Seriously, if they haven't had enough time to sort themselves out with business models now, they won't ever do it. "
Why not?
"No matter how much money they get, it isn't ever enough, and a flat rate model really does not fit into the wallet busting amounts of money they want."
That's just a retch isn't it? If you ask a manager, band or indie record label if they think "wallet busting amounts of money" are available now online, you'd be laughed out of the room.
You don't sound like a Freetard to me (actually I know you're not), that's a very good summary of the situation Trevor.
I don't know where the phrase enlightened self-interest comes from. That wasn't me.
I would say that since neither of us has a crystal ball it may be worth waiting until the market develops. The music business hasn't made the fundamental supply side reforms it needs to make.
It's still difficult/impossible to get a music license if you make doorbells, or are a social networking site or a listings paper, for example. Tesco should be selling a P2P service you can subscribe to via sms. Most things that, could be tried have not been tried yet.
The "...and you're out" of Three Strikes has gone. Permanent disconnections will not be a sanction.
And since we don't know how many "strikes", Ofcom will choose to implement (after a year's consultation) then it's daft to even think in terms of Strikes or Threes. It's able to order some kind of technical measure, that's all.
That's quite a victory from three years ago, people prefer want to keep the myth alive because it suits them. Keeps the donations rolling in.
Augmented Reality trumps reality every time.
Interesting points.
The statutory/compulsory issue is a common confusion - not helped by the fact it means different things in different places.
Virgin's P2P service didn't need a compulsory license. It was all voluntary, created through agreements between private parties, acting in enlightened self-interest.
To make file sharing "legal", record companies agree to give up one of their exclusive rights, the right to make a copy of a sound recording, in exchange for an agreed share of the money. No law is needed, no rate board sets the price of music.
I'm guilty of advocating a statutory in the past to make p2p legal, as a quick fix, that's true. I now think it isn't far on a lot of people, and the disadvantages and dangers far outweigh the advantages.
The "Great Unwashed" have always had their say, Roger. Readers have never been shy about emailing me for my Mailbag.
Some just prefer to do so untraceably and anonymously via a web form - a weird form of communication. But I try and make everyone happy.
From your comments it's obvious you haven't understood the Clause. I think you need to read it. A good start is get the number right. It's 43, not 34.
The arguments to support the Pirate policy haven't really materialised here. The initial points have been repeated over and over again, which in the long run, tends to lose arguments. So people are advocating a discriminatory policy, where the justification for the discrimination is not being offered.
There is plenty of moral indignation at the existence of copyright intermediaries in general, and record companies in particular. Plenty of others have disputed that any economic harm will be caused - which isn't a credible claim.
I get the impression that because Pirates are usually in agreement with each other - it's the shared interest through which they've met - they haven't thought out how to engage in counter arguments.
I am aware of one sole paper which written by an anti-copyright activist, which puts the optimal copyright term as 14 years. It's an interesting approach, but contradicted by the others. And while somebody referred to something like it, but if it provided an author, title or link, then I missed it. Again, poor technique.
"But given that those who illegally download are more willing to pay for music than those who don't, it would seem that the music industry really ought to try not to annoy/incarcerate them all."
The primary duty of a copyright intermediary is to exploit the work, and by shunning sharing as a commercial opportunity, it has failed to do this as well as it could.
If we had a choice of licensed P2P services in 2004 or 2005, there would have been no Pirate Party. The failure to license rests solely with the record companies.
"I never suggested the hard line you appear to have assumed, but the creator of any work, should be the one to benefit from it, not some faceless company."
Did you really mean that literally?
The inability to assign copyright to an intermediary is a very hard line indeed - it rips whole chunks out of the economy. In music, it would mean (literally) no managers, no performing rights societies to negotiate on their behalf with broadcasters, no publishers, no labels.
If you simply meant the "creator should get a better deal" then we're in agreement.
Thanks for sharing.
"So those who use the term "freetard" in the free-as-in-beer sense are probably applying the label incorrectly here."
The survey doesn't support your conclusion. It tells us that people who are interested in music will acquire more than people who don't - in either licensed or unlicensed form. This is not surprising.
"The survey found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly."
They may otherwise be spending £770 or £7700 a year - I know some who people do. The challenge for the music business is to capture some of that, and it's failing to so - even with services it blesses.
We've covered the decline in "wallet share" many times.
That's very authoritarian.
A creator can assign his or her rights if they find it worthwhile. They can assign them all to the Public Domain. Or they can assign some to an intermediary, who can go off and realise the rightful value of the work, and so they can concentrate on their art.
Why not chop their arms and legs off, while you're at it? That would stop 'em walking about too. We sure as hell don't need walking artists, musicians, etc...
Some posters here take the view that the consequences are a price worth paying. Your approach is slightly different - you say no (real) harm is done, and it's all for the best. You've become intellectually decoupled from the consequences of the policies you advocate.
The Pirate Party quite specifically restricts creators access to markets. It does so by removing the choices are creator has to sell their creations in the marketplace. It also removes the protections they currently enjoy.
* You propose that they create some legal file sharing services...
I do indeed.
* ... which, they in fact have.
Care to name some? Korea doesn't count ;-)
(Which means the next stage of your argument collapses. )
Even on the Island of Makestuffup, this is a very strange assertion. More than 80 per cent of people here said they'd consider paying for a P2P music service, but there wasn't one on offer. There still isn't one offer, let alone the market we should have. Pretending we have had lots of licensed P2P music services lets the producers off the hook.
* "Very little profit is ever seen by works older than 10 years, let alone 30"
Which shows how little you understand about the spectrum of copyright, and who benefits. Oldies stations, which didn't exist until the 1980s, by definition play old records. A five or ten year copyright would rob performers and composers of their performance rights. And (in almost every country in the world) the label of its performance right, too. It's a subject you you could usefully read up on.
(Obviously, if a record is still selling 30 years on, it's very profitable for the producer.)
* Assuming for now a 10 year copyright, what it would do is demonstrate the true value of a CD.
I think you mean "sound recording" - the CD is merely the container for the bag of rights that a recording encapsulates. That's a bit like saying Van Gogh's pictures realised their true value in his lifetime.
* I find it particularly hilarious that you invoke feudalism in this case, as you're position is closer to feudalism.
For sure, under a Pirate regime creators would be able to perform tricks for corporate sponsors, and perhaps even the State. Some will become adept at kissing the hand that feeds them. There's always a "behaviour change" campaign that needs a pliant minstrel. (Obesity is all the rage this month). But you've taken a lot of choice away from the creator and taken them several steps back from the economic opportunities they previously enjoyed.
You still need to justify these changes economically and morally. I don't see an upside to it, just costs and appropriation.
You don't sound daft at all, but your knowledge is incomplete, and you're letting your prejudices do your thinking for you.
I think we need a new Pirate Party, Will. The 1710 argument always blows up the person making it: it's like watching cows wander over a minefield.
In 1710 performance rights didn't exist - they were only invented about 150 years later. At that point, copyright was no longer attached to a physical product. To argue, as you do, that the decoupling is a brand new Innerwebs invention shows a serious lack of education - on a subject where you seek to define unique identity for yourself.
Now let that idea sink in for a moment.
So you see that copyright is a social agreement developed in response to technology (specifically copying machines). Which makes it quite a remarkable thing - and why it will endure
people who want to abolish the technology, or break the agreement.
If you want to un-invent performance rights, you'll need to uninvent electricity (conceptually and metaphorically).
The "deteriment of the creators" :-)
Poorer is richer; fewer choices more free. We've been round this house, you don't seem to have a response to it, do you?
You dare not ask them, as I suggested, because most creators hearing your argument would rip your head off, then flush the gristly bits down the pan.
Repeating your same point endlessly - intermediaries are immoral, we must grab their rights - isn't getting you anywhere. Don't you feel penned-in by the intellectual cul-de-sac you've chosen, yet?
[tajasel] * Provide me with proof that Section 17 was drafted by ORG.
The replacement for Section 17 was created by the BPI and drafted with ORG. It's in Hansard, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/16/mandybill_net_blocking_dropped/
I can't do your reading for you - you have to do a little work yourself.
[tajasel] * I'm not sure what your point is with the three strikes article
Did you click on all the links - starting...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/three_strikes_dead_hurrah/
- here?
[tajasel] * I skim read your article
Yes. I can see that.
This Sixth Form cut-and-paste stuff really isn't helping you. You've arrived late, and missed the discussion. I'll recap for your benefit:
My way means nobody needs to lose out, lose rights or choices or access to markets. Your means a lot of people do lose out. You need to justify both morally and economically.
The Ladybird Book of Lessig will not be of much use to you here. Nor will nostalgia for pre-industrial Feudalism. Off you go.
Happy to examine the facts Tajasel... I think you will find it illuminating.
The ORG actually helped draft Section 17... then after it was withdrawn, pretended it was still in the legislation.
(The literature issued at the protest falsely states website blocking is in the Bill. It isn't.)
"Disconnection Denies Our Rights"
You've been wallied again:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/23/three_strikes_myth/
Have you asked yourself why the cause needs to generate so many falsehoods? Maybe reality is more subtle than it is portrayed.
"Tosh. Sharing copyrighted content is copyright infringement..."
Yes, my dear. You really didn't read the article or the Comments, did you?
"Licensing that exclusive right is best done voluntarily, by the rightsholders themselves, I think you would agree." I don't.
Ah, so you advocate stripping rights from people with creative talent.
What a bitter man you are!
The longer the thread goes on, the more apparent it is that spite and jealousy are the main motivations here.
" My son is one and he's just released his latest album on Creative Commons terms. But this doesn't stop him working at something else for his living..."
I've heard of parents selling their children into slavery. I've heard of parents maiming their children to make them more effective beggars.
Conceptually, this isn't too different ;-)
"But after about 10 years or so they gave up and got proper jobs."
Your prejudices are poking through again.
But of course, you know what best for creators...
(By the way, since you're someone who lives off the "public expense", you might want to remember the line about glasshouses and stones!)
You're acting out one of things that's most fascinating attitudes about Freetardery, which is the persecution complex. You need to feel victimised. It's like watching someone who's been knocked down by a car rush back into the road and look for a truck.
At least your arguments are taking you closer to a resolution.
You now agree that you're handicapping creators access to a paying market, and reducing their economic choices. For you, this is progress, and an acceptance of basic economics that eludes quite a few Jolly Pirates. But you fantasise that by doing so, are freeing them of a millstone. That by being poorer, they are actually richer. That with fewer options, they are more free.
I suppose we could always ask them.
Yep. But it's the bit that's new that's worth protecting.
(The "Disney wouldn't exist" argument fails hard. Without those works, Disney would have chosen some other stories to work with - Greek, probably. And if they were any good, your childhood would have been just as populated with nice musical animations. You need to be sharper than simply recycling passages from your copy of Lessig for Dummies here. )
I don't think a professional skeptic is being demanded - just somebody who isn't up to his neck in vested interests. The value of Oxburgh's personal worth is materially affected by the outcome of his enquiry.
You would think such a person would exist, somewhere. But maybe they don't exist - and everyone is on the take.
To fail to see this suggests some serious intellectual or moral shortcomings.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
