Re: Controller of the treasure chest
Heh. I'm not doing your work for you M2Ys4U.
The figures you need to support your assertion can be found on pretty easily Google. Try comparing 1999 with 2007 or 2008.
1435 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
This is what happens when you back the wrong argument, and find yourself in an intellectual cul de sac. You begin to depend on mishearing, misquoting, or misunderstanding other people.
Eg #1:
"a 'shot at the big time' elsewhere from the content biz, including casinos, stock investment scams or lotteries with null return for the majority of punters and the odd stinking rich exception to motivate the losers."
But not a shot at the Big Time in the marketplace of artistic creation - rewarding the talent they have nurtured.
Eg #2:
"So Mr Orlowski wants us to negotiate away fundamental human rights (expression and privacy)"
See above (ad nauseum). Nobody loses.
You may differ from the Men Who Don't Yet Shave by age, and by perhaps by nuance, too - but your argument is also founded upon a deep and unpleasant set of intellectual prejudices. You're anti-talent, and resent talented people being rewarded for their talents.
Those are really repellent prejudices, in anyone's book.
Rants like this must be theraputic for the keyboard-basher making them, but they don't seem to be designed to convince anyone outside the Garden Shed. Quite a few objections to the program have been raised by me and here in the Comments, but I can't see anyone setting out the case.
Just a lot of repetition of entitlements. Maybe Pirate Party politics is about pressing the doorbell and then running away, really fast?
"It's a choice between rights holders and the general public."
Only in your imagination. Once you step out of the Garden Shed, things are more complicated, contradictory, and interesting. Some people will always prefer a simplified view of the world, because they feel more comfortable in it.
"The record industry is squeezing money out of consumers"
The record industry is "squeezing" less money out of consumers than at any point in the past ten years. About half as much. You've even explained why.
Welcome to the spotlight, Andrew. But you need to raise your game. Insults are not an adequate substitute for rational argument. I note you've avoided most of the points I raised, and in particular, the main one: why anyone needs to be poorer.
No PP has offered a coherent justification for stripping rights from people. Or why creators and businesses should be poorer. Or why we should handicap an important part of our economy.
In my piece, I've explained how we can get P2P file sharing without anyone being screwed. Now it's your turn.
I would advise tightening up your prose (you're rambling about Fox here, megaphones there), stop playing to the gallery, and really honing your arguments.
I'd really caution against making stuff up in areas where it's clear you know very little, such as artist contracts: eg, "Then most aren't so sure." That's a conjecture. There are people here who know this area much better than you do.
As I wrote in the article, you can get to your goals in a way that means nobody gets poorer - or spied upon, or has their rights stripped.
On the other hand, if you create a belief system based on a bunch of prejudices, then advocate policy based on spite, then of course people will react.
Yet you seem surprised by this reaction. Failure of empathy?
Oh dear.
"it doesn't mean I'll be able to present "Thriller" as my own work!"
Read it again slowly, because it doesn't say what you think it means. You'll be able to issue Michael Jackson's Thriller under your own "Anonytard" record label (or whatever you want to call it), and you will not need to pay the composer or creator of the sound recording.
You really do need a crash course in copyright, so you don't confuse authorship and ownership.
It may surprise you to learn that many, if not most, new acts want to be signed to a major record label. They see the deal as a favourable trade-off for the exposure they give them. They know very well that most don't make it, and how long it takes to recoup. But if you want a shot at the big time, you go with someone who can get you there.
Others are happy with the 50/50 revenue share offered by an indie label.
Your argument fails to make any such distinctions, and is taking choices and opportunities away from people.
"I say we should believe the experts in the field - and by and large, in fact in proportions very rarely seen in any scientific debate, they all seem to agree that AGW exists "
That's pre-Enlightenment logic, Mark.
We got rid of it hundreds of years ago, just like we got rid of tugging forelocks at the nobility.
Welcome Michael, it's always nice to see new readers signing up to Comment.
Are you suggesting he has no interest in Climate Change? Merely directorship of a large international environmental lobbying network, chairmanship of a windmill company and chairmanship of a renewable energy company, and is an advisor to a green lobby group, and two green companies.
To me, it sounds like he's very interested indeed.
"And no doubt the people that are complaining about this are exactly the same ones that complain the government don't do anything to promote business and technical excellence in the the UK.."
Perhaps there are scientists out there who need £30m more than this boondoggle.
"in what areas is the UK (still) self-sufficient, apart from moaning? oil, food, manufacturing?"
Self-sufficiency isn't a goal for any modern economy. If it was we'd be much, much poorer.
If that's all too Daily Mail for you, you definitely need a basic course in GCSE economics.
I can see why you want to change the subject, but you're avoiding the issue. There is strong demand for recorded music, and disposable income willingly given up for it. It's valued.
If the value is not being captured then the supply chain needs to be reformed, with new ways of capturing the value offered to the market.
Matt, I'm not sure how many NuLab MPs have been in business, but it's not many at all. MPs of all parties now have little experience beyond the party machinery.
"music has been around an awful lot longer than EMI, Sony etc.... it will be around longer than whichever the popular medium for the times is too."
Indeed, but in feudal times artists depended upon charity. Thanks to copyright, they gained some economic independence. As old models go down, they should gain even more independence and autonomy - able to choose their middlemen.
I would have thought that would be something everyone can support, rather than viewing the poor buggers as collateral damage.
I know Salford very well, Peter, and I stand by that. It's 2.6 miles from Piccadilly, further if you drive, and more than 20 minutes on Metrolink.
It isn't even on the main Metrolink line. MediaCity will have its own very expensive little spur - another example of the poor subsidising the rich, and the North forking out to make the South comfortable.
- Andrew
You're being exceptionally naive.
This is classic empire building. They want our money to do something that will ultimately be very expensive, for something nobody wants. As many commenters here point out, it's pointless. A blank cheque is being requested.
When they can offer more than platitudes and tell us how it will cost, then we can have a public debate on whether we need it.
You're right, but my point is that for some people some of the time, that's all they need. It might even be many people much of the time.
Think about the kind of queries Google receives, and what might satisfy its users at a lower cost than indexing the Entire World Wide Web of Spam.
Your point about the telcos failure to innovate is well made, but when you assert:
"Absent google the net would have far less traffic than it does. Absent google people would not be able to find anything on the net."
then you're in trouble.
Without Google, DNS would get cleverer. People would type in Fox News, the New York Times or The Register and find what they're looking for. That's an intelligent network.
You should talk to Google. They know they're indexing a lot of crap, it's expensive, and nobody needs it.
The test would obviously be to pit Smarter DNS vs Google in a price war, and see who won.
"Or a subsidy someone is paying google?"
In effect, yes. Every "producer" in the world is subsidising the maintenance of the Google search index. We don't hear too many complaints today, because it's generally considered to be a price worth paying today. Nobody wants to drop out of Google, although newspapers are very tempted to do so, if they could believe they could all do so at once.
"Do you want Google to pay for BOTH ends of every connection to any of their servers?"
It's not my call, it's up to people who pay the bills.
I'll describe it another way: the spread of costs as they are now means Google receiving a subsidy from producers. If this doesn't match the perceived value, then a new settlement will be reached, one with a different spread of costs.
Maybe Google will start to pay the producers who create the value (amateur or professional), or the distributors who ship it from the POP. The BBC was talking about creating a CDN to do just that - to help out the ISPs. Who knows?
"by digressing in to his 'the internet is going to be ruined by Google' speech. Hmm. Maybe that was the point - it's not Apple but Google. However, either POV requires an impressive crystal ball to confirm."
I wouldn't even attempt to predict it either way.
The point is to describe the choices, and to ensure the various parties offering us choices outline them honestly.
Google knows what shape it wants the internet to be: it's one that maximises profits for Google (which is not a crime) but it also happens to be one that leaves no money on the table for other people. There are others, who are large and powerful too, have their own ideas about what shape the internet should be.
So now we can have an informed discussion.
That is all.