Mike, for years you've been saying that piracy has no effect at all. Now you've changed your tune and, worst, you pretend that you are still playing the same.
Do you realize that we can Google "BestNetTech + piracy + negative impact"?
I've been following BestNetTech for God knows how many years. Its a great site full of valuable information and, more importantly, great insights.
I work in IP with media related companies. I think that your position (you Mike Masnick)in the "IP wars" sometimes is superficial and silly: Media companies bad, Tech companies, good. But in general, as I said, this site is great and, at the very least, it has helped me to "sharpen" my arguments.
As a regular of BestNetTech I can attest that whenever you or your fellow writers have found Google or any other tech company in the wrong, in your opinion, you have been even harder with them.
I have no doubts about your integrity and I only want to thank you for all your efforts.
Barnes and Noble didn't actually said that. What really happened is that the Department of Justice reached an agreement with a couple of publishers that forbids the latter to enter into agency contracts (where they and not Amazon set the price to the consumer) for the next two years.
What B&N actually said was.
1. Agency agreements are perfectly legal.
2. Amazon used to have 90% of the market and the ability to decide the price. Now that ability belong to a more competitive sector of the market (there are LOTS of publishers) and Amazon no longer has a 90% market share, now it has 60%.
3. If Apple and a couple of publishers did indeed enter into an anti competitive the DOJ should punish them but not replace that agreement with regulation in a market that clearly is competitive. B&N gave evidence that the price both of hardcovers and ebooks has fallen.
4. The ebook market is new. The state should not regulate it.
"And at what point are moron-sturbators in a hurry going to confuse a smart phone for a the latest Superhero porno parody? Seriously...how does this happen? Did someone at Vivid overhear an HTC customer say, "This phone blows," and get confused?"
Brilliant sir! Brilliant.
I guess that Vivid's lawyers were having a boring day at work so they decided to sue. What I can not understan is how can you be bored if one of your clients is a porn company.
At least here in Argentina the facts are not so clear. Apparently the accused hacker is just a distributor and, at most, can face criminal and civil charges for infringement and not for hacking.
Anyway she lives in Misiones (North Eastern Argentina) and a local paper published her picture (good looking girl bad picture). I find it hard to believe that she is an international hacker... but I thought the same about Trinity and we all know the ending of the Matrix.
I haven't read all the comments but I read the MOU and several articles about it (I even wrote a post about it in my blog... in Spanish). But I have a question about the "open Wifi defense" that the "pirate" can use only once. This question came to me while using my computer in an Starbuck in Buenos Aires ?What will happen to the Starbucks of USA that offer open wifi? Of course, I don't know if Starbucks offers open wifi up there...
Mike, I am a big fan of your articles and certainly you are right when you say that the music industry nemesis is itself.
You are also pretty good at applying economic analysis to the music industry: once the marginal cost is 0, then the marginal price has to be 0 too.
But Cooter and Ulen differentiate between two kind of costs. The "cost of expression" and the "cost of distribution". The second cost is, i think, the one you always refer to and the one that has dropped to 0 because of the digital revolution. But what about the "cost of expression", writing a book is not only a very time consuming enterprise, it's also one with a lots of risks and neither the cost nor the risks are lower today. The most important risk of course is that not enough persons buy your book and, therefore, that you won't be able to recoup the investment.
I know my position isn't that strong. You could argue that the net has lowered the risks by an order of magnitude because nowadays the chances to reach a global audience are much higher than before. You could also say that a successful author can recoup the investment with the ancillary rights (movies adaptation or merchandising), or by giving lectures, etc. Finally, you could argue that Homer didn't get the protection of the laws and still he was able to write a masterpiece: books will continue to be produced, for a number of reasons.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this.
Mike, I am a big fan of your articles and certainly you are right when you say that the music industry nemesis is itself.
You are also pretty good at applying economic analysis to the music industry: once the marginal cost is 0, then the marginal price has to be 0 too.
But Cooter and Ulen differentiate between two kind of costs. The "cost of expression" and the "cost of distribution". The second cost is, i think, the one you always refer to and the one that has dropped to 0 because of the digital revolution. But what about the "cost of expression", writing a book is not only a very time consuming enterprise, it's also one with a lots of risks and neither the cost nor the risks are lower today. The most important risk of course is that not enough persons buy your book and, therefore, that you won't be able to recoup the investment.
I know my position isn't that strong. You could argue that the net has lowered the risks by an order of magnitude because nowadays the chances to reach a global audience are much higher than before. You could also say that a successful author can recoup the investment with the ancillary rights (movies adaptation or merchandising), or by giving lectures, etc. Finally, you could argue that Homer didn't get the protection of the laws and still he was able to write a masterpiece: books will continue to be produced, for a number of reasons.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this.
While I share the sentiment this article has a couple of factual mistakes.
1. Its not a fine. Google and Yahoo were considered liable and thus have to pay damages.
2. Google, at least, has operations in Argentina (a beautiful office in Puerto Madero and more than 100 employees). So collecting the money won't be a problem.
I also hope that this will be reversed on appeal and that this gives incentives to our politicians to reform our laws as soon as possible.
This post made me remember something: a few years ago, watching a teaser or a trailer was something of a nightmare. Some you could only watch with realplayer, others with quicktime. If you were lucky enough you got more than one option.
Youtube and similar sites changed that for ever, and that is a good thing, not just for consumers but also for content creators.
It doesn't matter if Brazil is a better country than the U.S or viceversa. At the end of the day we, argentinians, kick both your asses in football.
(the above was a joke)
Because of that stupid discussion no one answered my post (number 2) in which I say that apparently the judge didn't order the web providers to ban wordpress.
I really want to know for sure.
Thanks.
I think you are mistaken. The judge didn't ban access to wordpress but to an specific blog hosted in it. The problem is, according to Brazil´s internet providers that they can't ban the access to an specific blog because of technical difficulties.
"A decisão, portanto, poderá deixar o serviço WordPress indisponível assim que os primeiros provedores efetuem o bloqueio. A Abranet explica que não pode deixar de cumprir uma decisão da Justiça, porém enviará carta ao Tribunal paulista explicando as dificuldades técnicas que a medida exige."
http://www.wordpressbrasil.com/2008/justica-pode-bloquear-wordpress-no-brasil/
The IPs say that the judge should order wordpress to block access to the offending blog but, if he doesn't and insist in his order then the only solution is to ban access to wordpress.
The judge, in my opinion, didn't think this through.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Francisco.
Really?
Mike, for years you've been saying that piracy has no effect at all. Now you've changed your tune and, worst, you pretend that you are still playing the same.
Do you realize that we can Google "BestNetTech + piracy + negative impact"?
I've been following BestNetTech for God knows how many years. Its a great site full of valuable information and, more importantly, great insights.
I work in IP with media related companies. I think that your position (you Mike Masnick)in the "IP wars" sometimes is superficial and silly: Media companies bad, Tech companies, good. But in general, as I said, this site is great and, at the very least, it has helped me to "sharpen" my arguments.
As a regular of BestNetTech I can attest that whenever you or your fellow writers have found Google or any other tech company in the wrong, in your opinion, you have been even harder with them.
I have no doubts about your integrity and I only want to thank you for all your efforts.
No, that is not what B&N said
Barnes and Noble didn't actually said that. What really happened is that the Department of Justice reached an agreement with a couple of publishers that forbids the latter to enter into agency contracts (where they and not Amazon set the price to the consumer) for the next two years.
What B&N actually said was.
1. Agency agreements are perfectly legal.
2. Amazon used to have 90% of the market and the ability to decide the price. Now that ability belong to a more competitive sector of the market (there are LOTS of publishers) and Amazon no longer has a 90% market share, now it has 60%.
3. If Apple and a couple of publishers did indeed enter into an anti competitive the DOJ should punish them but not replace that agreement with regulation in a market that clearly is competitive. B&N gave evidence that the price both of hardcovers and ebooks has fallen.
4. The ebook market is new. The state should not regulate it.
You bastard!
I was drinking a glass of water when I read this:
"And at what point are moron-sturbators in a hurry going to confuse a smart phone for a the latest Superhero porno parody? Seriously...how does this happen? Did someone at Vivid overhear an HTC customer say, "This phone blows," and get confused?"
Brilliant sir! Brilliant.
I guess that Vivid's lawyers were having a boring day at work so they decided to sue. What I can not understan is how can you be bored if one of your clients is a porn company.
At least here in Argentina the facts are not so clear. Apparently the accused hacker is just a distributor and, at most, can face criminal and civil charges for infringement and not for hacking.
Anyway she lives in Misiones (North Eastern Argentina) and a local paper published her picture (good looking girl bad picture). I find it hard to believe that she is an international hacker... but I thought the same about Trinity and we all know the ending of the Matrix.
http://www.territoriodigital.com/notaimpresa.aspx?c=9117915285374861
I haven't read all the comments but I read the MOU and several articles about it (I even wrote a post about it in my blog... in Spanish). But I have a question about the "open Wifi defense" that the "pirate" can use only once. This question came to me while using my computer in an Starbuck in Buenos Aires ?What will happen to the Starbucks of USA that offer open wifi? Of course, I don't know if Starbucks offers open wifi up there...
I wonder who authorized this guy to repeat the information the Financial Times gave?
Get of my lawn!
I wonder who authorized this guy to repeat the information the Financial Times gave?
Get of my lawn!
Re:
He is a 17 years old boy. At least in my country, Argentina, he can not take personal responsibility for his acts because he is a minor.
Kids are stupid, precisely for this the law protects them.
Full ruling?
Mike,
Can you point me to the full ruling?
The economics of book producing
Mike, I am a big fan of your articles and certainly you are right when you say that the music industry nemesis is itself.
You are also pretty good at applying economic analysis to the music industry: once the marginal cost is 0, then the marginal price has to be 0 too.
But Cooter and Ulen differentiate between two kind of costs. The "cost of expression" and the "cost of distribution". The second cost is, i think, the one you always refer to and the one that has dropped to 0 because of the digital revolution. But what about the "cost of expression", writing a book is not only a very time consuming enterprise, it's also one with a lots of risks and neither the cost nor the risks are lower today. The most important risk of course is that not enough persons buy your book and, therefore, that you won't be able to recoup the investment.
I know my position isn't that strong. You could argue that the net has lowered the risks by an order of magnitude because nowadays the chances to reach a global audience are much higher than before. You could also say that a successful author can recoup the investment with the ancillary rights (movies adaptation or merchandising), or by giving lectures, etc. Finally, you could argue that Homer didn't get the protection of the laws and still he was able to write a masterpiece: books will continue to be produced, for a number of reasons.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this.
The economics of book producing
Mike, I am a big fan of your articles and certainly you are right when you say that the music industry nemesis is itself.
You are also pretty good at applying economic analysis to the music industry: once the marginal cost is 0, then the marginal price has to be 0 too.
But Cooter and Ulen differentiate between two kind of costs. The "cost of expression" and the "cost of distribution". The second cost is, i think, the one you always refer to and the one that has dropped to 0 because of the digital revolution. But what about the "cost of expression", writing a book is not only a very time consuming enterprise, it's also one with a lots of risks and neither the cost nor the risks are lower today. The most important risk of course is that not enough persons buy your book and, therefore, that you won't be able to recoup the investment.
I know my position isn't that strong. You could argue that the net has lowered the risks by an order of magnitude because nowadays the chances to reach a global audience are much higher than before. You could also say that a successful author can recoup the investment with the ancillary rights (movies adaptation or merchandising), or by giving lectures, etc. Finally, you could argue that Homer didn't get the protection of the laws and still he was able to write a masterpiece: books will continue to be produced, for a number of reasons.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this.
While I share the sentiment this article has a couple of factual mistakes.
1. Its not a fine. Google and Yahoo were considered liable and thus have to pay damages.
2. Google, at least, has operations in Argentina (a beautiful office in Puerto Madero and more than 100 employees). So collecting the money won't be a problem.
I also hope that this will be reversed on appeal and that this gives incentives to our politicians to reform our laws as soon as possible.
This post made me remember something: a few years ago, watching a teaser or a trailer was something of a nightmare. Some you could only watch with realplayer, others with quicktime. If you were lucky enough you got more than one option.
Youtube and similar sites changed that for ever, and that is a good thing, not just for consumers but also for content creators.
You are all a bunch of geeks
It doesn't matter if Brazil is a better country than the U.S or viceversa. At the end of the day we, argentinians, kick both your asses in football.
(the above was a joke)
Because of that stupid discussion no one answered my post (number 2) in which I say that apparently the judge didn't order the web providers to ban wordpress.
I really want to know for sure.
Thanks.
Are you sure?
I think you are mistaken. The judge didn't ban access to wordpress but to an specific blog hosted in it. The problem is, according to Brazil´s internet providers that they can't ban the access to an specific blog because of technical difficulties.
"A decisão, portanto, poderá deixar o serviço WordPress indisponível assim que os primeiros provedores efetuem o bloqueio. A Abranet explica que não pode deixar de cumprir uma decisão da Justiça, porém enviará carta ao Tribunal paulista explicando as dificuldades técnicas que a medida exige."
http://www.wordpressbrasil.com/2008/justica-pode-bloquear-wordpress-no-brasil/
The IPs say that the judge should order wordpress to block access to the offending blog but, if he doesn't and insist in his order then the only solution is to ban access to wordpress.
The judge, in my opinion, didn't think this through.