6 ms·

Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers? I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music

by runn1ng 15y ago

Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers? I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. And what earbitcom is saying is - if you think the digital music costs too much or has too much DRM, you don't have to download it. And, by the way, what Louis CK did that is so revolutionary? He did a show and sold the recording online. For money. What is so revolutionary in that?

Natsu 15y ago
> Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers? Because that's how you get people to give you money. It should be common sense, but I see people failing badly. Louis CK is a good example because he showed that caring more about fans than pirates is good business sense. Pirates are going to pirate, so he said screw them, I'll do right by my fans. See, you get $0 whether they pirate or don't pirate. But with fans? You get a sale if they buy and no sale if they don't. So the pirates are all zeroes anyway, while the fans are the difference between sale and no sale, and that is what makes or breaks your business. > I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. As far as business goes, that debate is irrelevant. And unless you enjoy the whole starving artist thing, business is kind of important. Pirates haven't gone anywhere, so screwing your fans in the name of fighting piracy is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But you don't have to listen to me. You can tell your fans that it's your way or the highway if you want to. Just don't complain when they take the highway instead and go off to buy from someone who treats them well, like Louis CK.
- runn1ng 15y ago
  The thing is, it's the copyright holder's right to do whatever he wants with what he owns. If he wants, he can put it online for free, with Creative Commons license, for everyone to enjoy and reuse. Or he can go and sell individual songs for 50 dollars each. And it should be his right to do so, and this right should be protected. If you write software, you can put it under GPL code and demand that everyone, who sells and re-uses your code, also release it under GPL. And that's OK, you wrote the code, you are the author, you can do whatever you want to do with it, you can set your own rules (within the law). But you wouldn't like some corporation (say, Microsoft) to take your GPL code and re-sell it as closed-source without you seeing a dime of that money. But that's exactly what is going on at large with music and other culture today. Sites like MegaUpload, that is now seen on here like almost a harbringer of free speech, is making giant amounts of money on other people's work. Now I like that Louis CK is selling his comedy online without DRM. But conceptually it's not that much different from bands selling their music on iTunes, only that Louis is well known from TV.
  - ricardobeat 15y ago
    Except that we don't see corporations taking someone else's music and selling as their own. File-sharing applies to copyrighted software too.
    - runn1ng 15y ago
      Sites like Grooveshark or Megaupload are distributing other peoples' work, directly making money from the distribution - it could be called selling. You can make the same argument against torrent sites like PirateBay too, they have tons of ads around the site (and that's one of the arguments against them in Swedish court). They may be in loss, but that doesn't justify their actions. I agree with second part - that's why BSA is pushing SOPA, too. Yes, I agree that BSA itself does things that are verging from borderline legal to illegal (see earbit's article, just substitute BSA and RIAA).
      - ricardobeat 15y ago
        Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and a ton others are also directly making money from distribution of other people's work. These concepts are not clear-cut on the internet. Grooveshark often get's bundled with file-sharing websites, but they do have a deal with EMI and smaller labels, it's just that UMG want's a larger slice apparently. I agree that this right should be protected (selling my work), but you do have this right today and nobody is going to take it away anytime soon. It just so happens that information can be distributed instantly to anywhere in the world nowadays, so the business model of selling copies is failing. There is no conceivable way of changing that other than breaking the internet. If you paid U$1000 for a karate lesson, is teaching your friend a bit of karate stealing?
        runn1ng 15y ago
        >If you paid U$1000 for a karate lesson, is teaching your friend a bit of karate stealing? Depends on your agreement with the karate teacher. If you agree that you won't teach other people this technique, then technically, yes. To a friend it doesn't really matter, but on bigger scale, it does. It's called intellectual property.

by runn1ng 15y ago

Natsu 15y ago

> Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers? Because that's how you get people to give you money. It should be common sense, but I see people failing badly. Louis CK is a good example because he showed that caring more about fans than pirates is good business sense. Pirates are going to pirate, so he said screw them, I'll do right by my fans. See, you get $0 whether they pirate or don't pirate. But with fans? You get a sale if they buy and no sale if they don't. So the pirates are all zeroes anyway, while the fans are the difference between sale and no sale, and that is what makes or breaks your business. > I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. As far as business goes, that debate is irrelevant. And unless you enjoy the whole starving artist thing, business is kind of important. Pirates haven't gone anywhere, so screwing your fans in the name of fighting piracy is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But you don't have to listen to me. You can tell your fans that it's your way or the highway if you want to. Just don't complain when they take the highway instead and go off to buy from someone who treats them well, like Louis CK.

runn1ng 15y ago
The thing is, it's the copyright holder's right to do whatever he wants with what he owns. If he wants, he can put it online for free, with Creative Commons license, for everyone to enjoy and reuse. Or he can go and sell individual songs for 50 dollars each. And it should be his right to do so, and this right should be protected. If you write software, you can put it under GPL code and demand that everyone, who sells and re-uses your code, also release it under GPL. And that's OK, you wrote the code, you are the author, you can do whatever you want to do with it, you can set your own rules (within the law). But you wouldn't like some corporation (say, Microsoft) to take your GPL code and re-sell it as closed-source without you seeing a dime of that money. But that's exactly what is going on at large with music and other culture today. Sites like MegaUpload, that is now seen on here like almost a harbringer of free speech, is making giant amounts of money on other people's work. Now I like that Louis CK is selling his comedy online without DRM. But conceptually it's not that much different from bands selling their music on iTunes, only that Louis is well known from TV.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  Except that we don't see corporations taking someone else's music and selling as their own. File-sharing applies to copyrighted software too.
  - runn1ng 15y ago
    Sites like Grooveshark or Megaupload are distributing other peoples' work, directly making money from the distribution - it could be called selling. You can make the same argument against torrent sites like PirateBay too, they have tons of ads around the site (and that's one of the arguments against them in Swedish court). They may be in loss, but that doesn't justify their actions. I agree with second part - that's why BSA is pushing SOPA, too. Yes, I agree that BSA itself does things that are verging from borderline legal to illegal (see earbit's article, just substitute BSA and RIAA).
    - ricardobeat 15y ago
      Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and a ton others are also directly making money from distribution of other people's work. These concepts are not clear-cut on the internet. Grooveshark often get's bundled with file-sharing websites, but they do have a deal with EMI and smaller labels, it's just that UMG want's a larger slice apparently. I agree that this right should be protected (selling my work), but you do have this right today and nobody is going to take it away anytime soon. It just so happens that information can be distributed instantly to anywhere in the world nowadays, so the business model of selling copies is failing. There is no conceivable way of changing that other than breaking the internet. If you paid U$1000 for a karate lesson, is teaching your friend a bit of karate stealing?
      - runn1ng 15y ago
        >If you paid U$1000 for a karate lesson, is teaching your friend a bit of karate stealing? Depends on your agreement with the karate teacher. If you agree that you won't teach other people this technique, then technically, yes. To a friend it doesn't really matter, but on bigger scale, it does. It's called intellectual property.