Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-30-2009, 09:17 AM   #51
Carsten Möllering
 
Carsten Möllering's Avatar
Dojo: Hildesheimer Aikido Verein
Location: Hildesheim
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 932
Germany
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Cherie Cornmesser wrote: View Post
There is a little button under all videos on U-tube that says flag. Anyone can report a video for being inappropriate including copyrighted materiel. Just click the button.
Again:
It's not that easy as I know from experience.

Only the owner of the rights can report a copyright violation.
And he has to proove his or her rights in a long process.
Filling in the form youtube requires if you report a violation of copyrights is just the first step.

Carsten
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 09:44 AM   #52
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 841
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
Obviously it can be difficult to tell if something is covered by copyright, especially if someone trims out identifying information (which is done quite often). But how on earth is that relevant to whether a person should post it in the first place?
It does not, however it takes two to tango. You stress you respect to the copyright owner and I was wondering if it extends to verifying that the content you are viewing is "legal".

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
The question also isn't one of popularity of a law. The question is one of rights and ownership. And saying it is useless is most certainly an opinion and not a fact. If you happen to have worked very hard for years to create something having someone else say that a copyright you have to protect your creation is useless takes some rather large cajones. It does protect and it gives those who create a legal avenue to prevent a lot of things.
When I say that the law is useless, it is not due to the nature of the content it is supposed to protect. It is simply because it is not capable of doing that.
Others have posted links with suggestions on how content creators might survive in this brave new world.

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
It is not likely they could given the history of the organization and the name. Which is what trademark law is all about. Both protecting valid intellectual property and preventing people from taking out inappropriate trademarks. There have been many posts about the history of the name "aikido". It is actually a good example of how something like that most likely couldn't be trademarked by any individual group.
Not sure I like those odds :-) Daito Ryu example is very real.

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
The issue is whether anyone should have the right to distribute other peoples' work regardless of the creator's intent.
While there is a moral and emotional aspect to this, it is irrelevant. When something can be duplicated at zero cost and can be distributed at zero cost, it will be.
So while you (and me) may choose to respect the content creator's wishes, it is of no consequence in the larger scheme of things.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 10:44 AM   #53
Keith Larman
Dojo: AIA, Los Angeles, CA
Location: California
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,604
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
It does not, however it takes two to tango. You stress you respect to the copyright owner and I was wondering if it extends to verifying that the content you are viewing is "legal".
If you're asking about me, personally, yes, I've been burned enough times on having work copied to try to avoid copyrighted material. I rarely visit youtube because apart from water skiing squirrels there's precious little content there worth viewing. I do occasionally view material there where the creator uploaded their own stuff, however. Friends in other dojo uploading their own videos, etc. No problem there. The rest is not that much different than the various torrent sites "sharing" software, music, video, etc., mostly in violation of copyright. I have an Amazon Kindle, I buy books, I buy CD's, and I buy songs (albeit rarely) from itunes for my ipod.

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
When I say that the law is useless, it is not due to the nature of the content it is supposed to protect. It is simply because it is not capable of doing that.
Others have posted links with suggestions on how content creators might survive in this brave new world.
Again, I'm not arguing that the laws won't have to change. I am arguing that people should abide by them, however. That it is increasingly easy to violate copyrights doesn't somehow absolve those who do from responsibility. Arguments from either side about financial harm or gain is totally irrelevant to this aspect and frankly I find them insulting. It is simply not anyone else's decision to make with respect to an individual's intellectual property.

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
Not sure I like those odds :-) Daito Ryu example is very real.
As is Suio Ryu. However there are issues underlying those things. Part of the reason I have an opinion on this is that I have looked into those issues on behalf of people who were considering similar things. They are not done on behalf of things that are for all intents and purposes descriptive (Aikido, Aikijutsu, etc.), but some of those styles that have been around a long time have become concerned with "McDojo" popping up with zero authority claiming to represent them. And in some cases the trademarking is done to prevent someone else who really has no relation to the line doing it first.

In other words, there is a ton of abuse going on out there from a lot of corners. And people are starting to get concerned about the perceived disregard for intellectual property including deluded wanna-be's trademarking style names, etc. So some are getting downright fanatical in protecting their perceived property (often to their own detriment) because the perceived disregard for intellectual property rights in the general public. So some are casually ripping it off left and right with a sort of "hey, it's free, it's easy, it's inevitable, so I'm going to do it too..." attitude.

and it just gets increasingly ugly...

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
While there is a moral and emotional aspect to this, it is irrelevant. When something can be duplicated at zero cost and can be distributed at zero cost, it will be.
So while you (and me) may choose to respect the content creator's wishes, it is of no consequence in the larger scheme of things.
I couldn't disagree more. It is not irrelevant. The moral aspect is the biggest shame of it all. And I think you are correct on the long term view, however. It will be next to impossible for the small author or content creator to ever get compensated. Only the large groups with corporate backing will prosper. All the very type of content we've been talking about will be relegated to whatever someone casually decides to upload to youtube. Fewer books from guys like Ellis et al. Fewer videos from people like Mary Heiny. Why produce when you can't even begin to recover even the costs? But more importantly... Why produce material for people who overwhelmingly don't respect the work itself.

It won't hurt the big players -- they'll figure it out. It's the small players that will vanish.

We are looking forward to a brave new world of corporate produced content... Because they're the only ones who'll be able to make it worth their while to create and sell it. I've been struggling on a book myself *knowing* I will lose money on this project. I've stopped posting on forums on many of my areas. I've stopped answering questions because frankly few want to learn -- they just want a fast answer which really isn't possible. I had decided instead to focus on writing a book or two on my areas. But the interesting thing is that your arguments are increasingly convincing me of what some friends have already told me -- that I shouldn't even bother. And that really is sad.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 10:58 AM   #54
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,615
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
While there is a moral and emotional aspect to this, it is irrelevant.
What! An aikidoka saying that morals are irrelevent!?!?!?

Will wonders never cease?
Best,
Ron

ps Good posts Keith.

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 12:05 PM   #55
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
It does not, however it takes two to tango. You stress you respect to the copyright owner and I was wondering if it extends to verifying that the content you are viewing is "legal".
For the U.S., it's not always simple to figure out the law, but generally, if it's newer work, then it's mostly protected in some form or another.

http://www.llrx.com/features/digitiz...htm#Expiration

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
Not sure I like those odds :-) Daito Ryu example is very real.
Maybe not, but in the U.S., you'd never be able to trademark "aikido". From the inception, that name was meant as a general catch-all to various arts. From usage, many groups, including Daito ryu have used "aikido" to describe their art. Quite a lot of Ueshiba's students who struck out on their own use "aikido" to describe their art.

I don't like wiki pages all that much, but for a quick overview, they're sometimes okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 12:17 PM   #56
jss
Location: Rotterdam
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 459
Netherlands
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
It won't hurt the big players -- they'll figure it out. It's the small players that will vanish.
I don't think all the small players will vanish, but they will be limited to low-cost creations that are easily distributable through the internet. Prices will have to be low. Perhaps creators will even have to give away their stuff for free and ask for voluntary contributions. And unfortunately DRM will be too expensive to implement, so you're really at the mercy of the public.
I really believe/hope that people are willing to support this.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 12:25 PM   #57
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
I've been struggling on a book myself *knowing* I will lose money on this project. I've stopped posting on forums on many of my areas. I've stopped answering questions because frankly few want to learn -- they just want a fast answer which really isn't possible. I had decided instead to focus on writing a book or two on my areas. But the interesting thing is that your arguments are increasingly convincing me of what some friends have already told me -- that I shouldn't even bother. And that really is sad.
By now, I think most people know that Ellis was the one who got Dan to get out and meet people. I don't know how Ellis managed to do that, but what I do know is that he convinced Dan to do something that, A)had no financial gain, B)could possibly cause major disruptions in his training, and C)could negatively impact his life outside training. So, really, why should Dan bother?

I guess each of us has to cross that bridge at some point. I don't know what Ellis said to convince Dan, but I do know that I'll never forget what Ellis did. Or what Dan is doing. I was the single someone out there looking for exactly that opportunity created by Ellis and Dan.

Is it worth the bother? I'm glad they decided it was. I hope somewhere down the line, someone says the same to you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 12:30 PM   #58
Keith Larman
Dojo: AIA, Los Angeles, CA
Location: California
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,604
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Joep Schuurkes wrote: View Post
I don't think all the small players will vanish, but they will be limited to low-cost creations that are easily distributable through the internet. Prices will have to be low. Perhaps creators will even have to give away their stuff for free and ask for voluntary contributions. And unfortunately DRM will be too expensive to implement, so you're really at the mercy of the public.
I really believe/hope that people are willing to support this.
I sincerely hope people do, but the track record so far ain't all that great. Most just don't realize how much work goes into writing. Especially a polished book. We're not talking a weekend here (unless you're Stephen King) but months if not years of work.

I was asked to write one particular book a while back. Unfortunately while they thought I could just rip it out in my spare time my opinion was quite different. I estimated at least 4-6 months of concentrated work to pull it off to be what I thought it should be (which is the only way I was going to do it). Now considering they wanted to advance me only enough to pay my mortgage for a month or two... And that was an advance, not just "free money". Which in today's market likely would never even be recovered. So that book will never be written, at least not by me. Because I can't feed my family on good intentions.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 12:47 PM   #59
Keith Larman
Dojo: AIA, Los Angeles, CA
Location: California
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,604
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
By now, I think most people know that Ellis was the one who got Dan to get out and meet people. I don't know how Ellis managed to do that, but what I do know is that he convinced Dan to do something that, A)had no financial gain, B)could possibly cause major disruptions in his training, and C)could negatively impact his life outside training. So, really, why should Dan bother?

I guess each of us has to cross that bridge at some point. I don't know what Ellis said to convince Dan, but I do know that I'll never forget what Ellis did. Or what Dan is doing. I was the single someone out there looking for exactly that opportunity created by Ellis and Dan.

Is it worth the bother? I'm glad they decided it was. I hope somewhere down the line, someone says the same to you.
My issue is that if I don't work on swords I don't get paid. And people aren't exactly rushing out to support crafts people today either. Cheap swords from China are good enough for most -- understandable -- money is tight for everyone. I appreciate those who do support the craft, but they are few and far between now. And most craftspeople are failing over the last few years due to lack of support/bad business. I'm watching the horizon wondering if I'm going to have to put on a suit again someday and leave my love behind relegating it to a part-time hobby. Heck, I spent a few hours in the bar with Jimmy Hayashi last year at a token kai. Jimmy was traditionally trained in polishing in Japan. He is *the* top guy in the US. We talked about deshi, etc. He said he can't afford to have students -- no time. The struggle to survive is all that is left. And once this last generation of those who took the time and devote the energy to learn moves on there is going to be precious little left.

And you'll hear the same complaints in Japan. Traditional craft is dying out with only a very few struggling mightily to keep it going. But without more support it *will* eventually die. And we will all be poorer for it.

So for me the books are now so far on the backburner I can't even see them anymore. I'm just worrying about surviving.

A craftsman from Japan (no longer with us) once told me to just tell the world to take a flying leap (actually he used a much more colorful phrase). If you can do the work for a living, great. If not, fine, do it for yourself only. He told me the world isn't entitled to what someone creates and maybe it needs to die for the world to truly appreciate what it had. Pursue it for the love of the art for yourself and let the world figure it out for themselves. That still resonates with me. There is no need for me to continue doing what I do full time and professionally. I can rejoin the work force, have a respectable career that engages me, and still do what I want when I want. And I'd be better off financially doing so. Heck, I could afford to get over to Japan more often if I did that.

To me that is the real future. Sad to see these things die, but maybe it is simply time.

And on that happy note I'm turning off the computer. Stones are soaked, polishing station is clean, caffeine has kicked in and I have a window of time to get some polishing done.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 06:44 PM   #60
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 695
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
By now, I think most people know that Ellis was the one who got Dan to get out and meet people. I don't know how Ellis managed to do that, but what I do know is that he convinced Dan to do something that, A)had no financial gain, B)could possibly cause major disruptions in his training, and C)could negatively impact his life outside training. So, really, why should Dan bother?

I guess each of us has to cross that bridge at some point. I don't know what Ellis said to convince Dan, but I do know that I'll never forget what Ellis did. Or what Dan is doing. I was the single someone out there looking for exactly that opportunity created by Ellis and Dan.

Is it worth the bother? I'm glad they decided it was. I hope somewhere down the line, someone says the same to you.
Hear, hear.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 06:51 PM   #61
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 695
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
To me that is the real future. Sad to see these things die, but maybe it is simply time.
that is the saddest thing i read in quite a while.

Click image for larger version

Name:	flutter_lg.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	94.7 KB
ID:	643
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 08:00 PM   #62
Rennis Buchner
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 62
Japan
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Joep Schuurkes wrote: View Post
I don't think all the small players will vanish, but they will be limited to low-cost creations that are easily distributable through the internet. Prices will have to be low. Perhaps creators will even have to give away their stuff for free and ask for voluntary contributions. And unfortunately DRM will be too expensive to implement, so you're really at the mercy of the public.
I really believe/hope that people are willing to support this.
They aren't. For the past few years a friend and I have run a sale record label to originally support newer artists in a fairly minor genre of music we were involved in. All of our releases got very positive reviews, a couple ranked very highly on release of the year reader's polls. That said, or best selling releases where the first two (neither of which recovered their costs) and as time has gone by, with each release sales plummeted further, while illegal downloads of each release soared. In the music scene several places are "trouble" locations, but Russia is by far the biggest problem due to their stance that they are not part of international copyright law. With in days of each release, these mp3 sites in Russia were selling our work, which we will never see a penny of, and they were being spread online everywhere. Things came to a head with our third release, which had the most advertising hype yet, and the worst sales (see the cases and cases of the cd in my closet).

People online were constantly saying that they'd buy more if they could listen to the whole product first, they'd pay if the money was directly going to the artists, etc. We listened and decided to release our whole catalog and future releases as free downloads with the option to buy cds if people wanted to (we charge less that $10 a cd, generally $8, including free international shipping anywhere, so the price was better than just about anywhere else too). The result? We've had tens of thousands of tracked free downloads, but as far as actual sales and voluntary contributions go it has been almost nothing (I'd say the average is about 1 sale in every 5,000 downloads, which in talking to other label owners I know seems to be about average) and every release we have made has lost money, progressively getting worse and worse. Even my last album, which we knocked down to a bare minimum on costs by using a print on demand service, which means no real back-stock has ended up losing money because I ordered 50 copies of it for stock for our online shop and we have only sold about 20 copies, despite about 50,000 downloads, overwhelmingly positive reviews and placing on the top ten albums of the year in 2008. Online music sales are so low that most labels now consider them a waste of time and money and probably 85% percent of the label owners I know have or are closing shop now, including many of the well established "big guns" in the scene.

Basically these days the small players are forced to give it away for free and pray that you hit the jackpot to even recoup your losses, which is causing most people I know to quit. Everyone will try it for a bit since start up costs are so low now, but almost everyoe fades away with in 2 years now.

My two cents from the trenches,
Rennis Buchner

Last edited by Rennis Buchner : 06-30-2009 at 08:02 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 10:04 PM   #63
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Thanks for the front line report Rennis It shows the great desparity between theory and practice in regard to monetizing creative content on the Web...

William Hazen
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 10:23 PM   #64
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 695
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
In the same way, I'm thinking about writing a book that lays things out from A-Z
Do it, man! I'm in for 5 at least.

Quote:
For discussion's sake let's say that a goodly return on invested time, knowledge, etc., was sufficient to tip the scale for me to write a book.
Accountant or artist?
Don't artists suffer for their work?
Sorry; that may not be funny. There are different models for publishing these days. Even liasing with custom courseware publishers on campus; and some publish-on-demand houses that do nice hardcovers and small batch sizes. But you probably know more about that than me.

Quote:
But there's not much money and some people don't think my knowledge ("Intellectual property") should be something I own or should profit from.
F* 'em. What do you think?
Personally, It seems to me we are all passers by. Walking thru this life for a short time. We come in naked with nothing, and leave the same.
Some people pick up driftwood and clean it and sell it. Others pick up swords. Others learn about electrons and photons and make a living.
We make a living by our minds and bodies and wits.
By hook or by crook.
The idea of 'owning' things is a bit funny though, in this context.
Even buying a beer at a pub is really only more or less renting it.

Quote:
So I won't do it any time soon; the incentives are gone.
crap. nevermind, then.

Quote:
So who gets hurt when intellectual property is trivialized and ripped off?
understood. but it is not so simple. IP is not a cure all.
it is abused as well. people patent to stop innovation. Engineering companies do it. There are whole holding-companies that do nothing but buy patents speculating that they may have future licensing value. These people create nothing directly. You heard of the RIM debacle last year with the crackBerry?
Drug companies innovate; but they also stop innovation.
It is one reason these big companies don't like uptake on old, proven cheap remedies either. like anything that works from chinese medicine, or other stuff that grandma shows that works and is cheap or easy. no profit. Did you know you can stop the itch of a mosquito (/any bug) bite almost instantly with scotch tape? Seriously. Try it for 2 min and it's gone. Nerdy but works.
don't you love those drug commercials that are on TV and you don't even know what they're for; but you're supposed to ask your doctor?

Sometimes people suck. this is another facet of that 'jewel'

FWIW

Josh

Last edited by thisisnotreal : 06-30-2009 at 10:37 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 10:36 PM   #65
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Today's and tomorrow's technology makes it and will make copyright issue more difficult to find a balance for those who make a living from creative and intellectual property. And because of digital technology and its ability to be mass produced very easily, yes, hurts financially those wanting to make a living from it.

But what it also has done is created the demand for products to be sampled in part or whole that in the past never could be sampled. It is also changing how we handle and look at creative and intellectual property and copyright laws.

This has divided people into basically two groups that is clearly evident in this thread. That isn't the real problem discussed here. I see the real problem technology. If you are going to point a finger at who isn't making a living in this field it technology. Why should I pay for an aikido video when there are hundreds on YouTube? And the future holds new technology greater then what is today. Therefore, I do you fight technology and its advancement by protecting your interests, your work, your livelihood?

I guess you have to be creative and find other ways.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 10:54 PM   #66
gdandscompserv
 
gdandscompserv's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,214
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Josh Phillipson wrote: View Post
The idea of 'owning' things is a bit funny though, in this context.
Owning things is an interesting concept, especially owning things like pieces of dirt. It's all really just a time lease isn't it?

Who owns the rights to Aikido?

Last edited by gdandscompserv : 06-30-2009 at 11:01 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2009, 11:41 PM   #67
Gernot Hassenpflug
Dojo: Aunkai, Tokyo
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 319
Japan
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Maybe there is an environment where marketing and mass production do not work. Advertising and marketing work to try and bring producers and (perhaps newly-created) consumers together more quickly and easily; on the other hand, the level of consumer "desire" may not be high enough to make the product sell at any apprciable price. That does not mean the product costs nothing to produce, it simply means it has almost not market value.

In that case, as Keith Larman said, instead of "pushing" a product to make a living, value it for itself and use judgment of character as a proxy for passing it (or parts of it) on to someone else. After all, buying and selling is an agreement between two parties, there is no benefit in the deal if one party feels entitled to the product without giving something that has equivalent value in the estimation of the other party.

Gernot Hassenpflug
Aunkai, Tokyo, Japan
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 06:30 AM   #68
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Books and music are different.

As Baen and Eric Flint noted, not from estimates but from reality, putting some content online for free produced more sales for authors. How they did it was very critical. I'd encourage those that are interested to really read through those articles by Flint.

Music. The RIAA's biggest cash cow was the CD. When the Internet hit, that cash cow started to become obsolete. Instead of changing with the times, the RIAA stuck to old models and tried to force the world to do the same. It didn't work. In fact, it backfired as they continued to sue someone's old grandmother. When they changed their business model, wow, lo and behold, they started making money again.

Quote:
IFPI wrote:
The digital music business internationally saw a sixth year of expansion in 2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value. Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales, up from 15 per cent in 2007. Recorded music is at the forefront of the online and mobile revolution, generating more revenue in percentage terms through digital platforms than the newspaper (4%), magazine (1%) and film industries (4%) combined.
But in the same breath, they still cry about piracy.

Quote:
IFPI wrote:
Collating separate studies in 16 countries over a three-year period, IFPI estimates over 40 billion files were illegally file-shared in 2008, giving a piracy rate of around 95 per cent.
You'll note two very distinct differences. The first is real hard numbers. Reality. The second is studies and estimates. Anyone who has actually researched things knows how flimsy studies and estimates can be.

In fact, here's an article showing how wrong one report was and how the correction was downplayed in the news world:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...usic-downloads

When you actually dig into the numbers, you find a completely different story than what the RIAA is screaming and crying about. Once they changed their business model, digital sales started shooting through the ceiling for the RIAA and bringing in more money each year.

Quote:
portfolio.com wrote:
Digital music sales, meanwhile, continue to explode, rising 43 percent by value from 2006 to $1.25 billion — and up from $183 million in 2004.

Mobile music sales, including ringtones, ringbacks, and music videos, reached $880 million in 2007, a more than 100 percent increase from $420 million in 2005, the first year the R.I.A.A. started tracking mobile sales.
Does that mean that the RIAA is making more money than before? No. In fact, they haven't as "projected". The articles I quote even show the loss. But attributing it all to piracy is just the RIAA's way of complaining about not making the same amount of money, rather than addressing the whole problem.

As I said initially, CD sales was a huge cash cow. The only way to get the song you liked was to buy the CD. Once digital hit, individual songs were offered and people had a choice to buy what they liked and discard what they didn't. It wasn't a matter of piracy affecting profits, but a matter of quality and choice. Talk to anyone and you'll see that people rarely liked all the songs on a whole album (er, CD). Given the choice of paying $12-$20 for a CD and buying just those songs you like at $1/each, everyone chose buying just the songs they liked.

Add in the fact that the RIAA companies aren't putting out as much in quality artists as they used to (ask yourself who the record companies will promote -- person A who can really really sing but doesn't have the looks, or person B who can sing okay but not nearly as well but looks great) because computers can make up the difference in sound.

In the end you find a whole different reality than what the RIAA, MPAA, etc are trying their best to get you to believe.

Piracy? Yeah, it's a problem. There is no doubt about it. However, is it as big a problem as people are led to believe? No.

And as I've said before, is it right for someone to post the whole video online? I don't believe so, No.

But, let's leave this with being a Devil's Advocate: IF the sales of Mary Heiny's video had dwindled or dropped completely since it is an older video (2000), and IF the posting added sales (at least two people were interested) of that DVD, then how did it hurt Mary Heiny? The digital age certainly creates tons of grey areas when before they were black and white. Morally wrong, but financially could be a boon.

Interesting article about how game sales have really hurt the music industry rather than piracy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...wnloads-piracy

Links:

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_...s/dmr2009.html

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs...dustry-shrinks

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10130206-93.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/ar...ic/01indu.html

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=10498664

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_...s/rin/rin.html

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/14/med...all_media.html

http://mp3.about.com/b/2009/01/02/di...ry-a-boost.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 07:45 AM   #69
Keith Larman
Dojo: AIA, Los Angeles, CA
Location: California
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,604
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Mark:

One problem I've long had with the entire argument is that it simplifies the population of artists into a single monolithic entity. All statistics is simplification. All statistics involves trying to reduce complexity to reveal the underlying trend. The problem is that it also tends to ignore outliers and often you lose really important information simply because it wasn't being looked for to begin with. So how does the music industry (or even the large, corporate movie DVD industry for that matter) really relate to the type of content as involved in this post, Mary Heiny's DVD?

Is the point of all the statistics that Mary Heiny could be losing market share to video games? No, that's absurd. We're not talking about the latest Britney Spears album or the latest X-Men movie. We're talking about a technical DVD for a very small, specialized area.

Are you saying that her sales will benefit from having the video on-line?

Reread Rennis' post. Overall I'm sure the digitalization of music distribution has been a boon for many people. And I'm sure many large established acts have benefited. But we're talking about economies of a massive scale -- the mass market of music. The problem arises for those small guys working in niche areas. The areas that aren't mainstream, corporate, easily packaged and sold to huge audiences. If you're not Metallica or the Black Eyed Peas the road is a lot harder now. Sure, you can get exposure more easily for your music. But the small guy always had a hard time breaking even and now the odds are vastly worse.

The discussion here may have brought more attention to Ms. Heiny's DVD and may have resulted in sales for her. But that's simply a result of some guilt, some support in the community, some advertising (no such thing as bad press), but is still no justification for the initial piracy. Heck, Michael Jackson's album sales are soaring right now but I'm pretty sure the reason isn't one Jackson would have approved of had he been asked beforehand. And that is the major point.

And what that creates is a environment where the small, niche producer is a relic of the past. I think the attitude of "free sharing" has destroyed the ability of most people working in niche areas to ever be able to release well produced content. It was never easy before to write books or create video for a small, niche area such as Aikido. Rarely does anything done every recover the real costs of production. And while books are probably the least susceptible *at this time* due to the time it takes for the average computer geek to copy an entire book, that will come too (Google's project to digitize entire libraries for instance).

Basically the landscape is changing. And no, we can't stop it. Just realize that in 50 years from now the most recent polished Aikido video might still be Mary Heiny's video... Because no one in small niche areas will be able to afford to spend the money, the time and the energy to create content when they simply cannot recover any of the costs of doing so. It still takes the same amount of time to write. It still takes the same amount of time to plan. But copies can be made in seconds now and distributed globally virtually instantly.

A brave new world where you can still choose. Unfortunately the only choice is between Hostess Twinkies or Ding Dongs. Eat up! Enjoy!

Last edited by Keith Larman : 07-01-2009 at 07:48 AM.

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 07:58 AM   #70
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
Basically the landscape is changing. And no, we can't stop it. Just realize that in 50 years from now the most recent polished Aikido video might still be Mary Heiny's video... Because no one in small niche areas will be able to afford to spend the money, the time and the energy to create content when they simply cannot recover any of the costs of doing so. It still takes the same amount of time to write. It still takes the same amount of time to plan. But copies can be made in seconds now and distributed globally virtually instantly.

A brave new world where you can still choose. Unfortunately the only choice is between Hostess Twinkies or Ding Dongs. Eat up! Enjoy!
Absolutely. I'm always bemused by how many in the last couple of spoiled generations actually think it's someone's duty to lay down and show them what they want to know. I saw a recent (maybe within the last year) study where a bunch of college kids were unclear why ripping off music was wrong. The idea that they couldn't get instant gratification when they wanted it was something they apparently had trouble comprehending.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 08:44 AM   #71
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
Mark:

One problem I've long had with the entire argument is that it simplifies the population of artists into a single monolithic entity. All statistics is simplification. All statistics involves trying to reduce complexity to reveal the underlying trend. The problem is that it also tends to ignore outliers and often you lose really important information simply because it wasn't being looked for to begin with. So how does the music industry (or even the large, corporate movie DVD industry for that matter) really relate to the type of content as involved in this post, Mary Heiny's DVD?

Is the point of all the statistics that Mary Heiny could be losing market share to video games? No, that's absurd. We're not talking about the latest Britney Spears album or the latest X-Men movie. We're talking about a technical DVD for a very small, specialized area.

Are you saying that her sales will benefit from having the video on-line?

Reread Rennis' post. Overall I'm sure the digitalization of music distribution has been a boon for many people. And I'm sure many large established acts have benefited. But we're talking about economies of a massive scale -- the mass market of music. The problem arises for those small guys working in niche areas. The areas that aren't mainstream, corporate, easily packaged and sold to huge audiences. If you're not Metallica or the Black Eyed Peas the road is a lot harder now. Sure, you can get exposure more easily for your music. But the small guy always had a hard time breaking even and now the odds are vastly worse.

The discussion here may have brought more attention to Ms. Heiny's DVD and may have resulted in sales for her. But that's simply a result of some guilt, some support in the community, some advertising (no such thing as bad press), but is still no justification for the initial piracy. Heck, Michael Jackson's album sales are soaring right now but I'm pretty sure the reason isn't one Jackson would have approved of had he been asked beforehand. And that is the major point.

And what that creates is a environment where the small, niche producer is a relic of the past. I think the attitude of "free sharing" has destroyed the ability of most people working in niche areas to ever be able to release well produced content. It was never easy before to write books or create video for a small, niche area such as Aikido. Rarely does anything done every recover the real costs of production. And while books are probably the least susceptible *at this time* due to the time it takes for the average computer geek to copy an entire book, that will come too (Google's project to digitize entire libraries for instance).

Basically the landscape is changing. And no, we can't stop it. Just realize that in 50 years from now the most recent polished Aikido video might still be Mary Heiny's video... Because no one in small niche areas will be able to afford to spend the money, the time and the energy to create content when they simply cannot recover any of the costs of doing so. It still takes the same amount of time to write. It still takes the same amount of time to plan. But copies can be made in seconds now and distributed globally virtually instantly.

A brave new world where you can still choose. Unfortunately the only choice is between Hostess Twinkies or Ding Dongs. Eat up! Enjoy!
I quoted the whole thing because I liked your post.

I don't disagree with it. One of the points I'm making is similar to yours. Tech has changed the way people have had to look at business models. If we, as small business and niche markets, follow the larger corporations route and try to keep to the old model, we're more than likely going to see the same results. Once the larger corporations realized that by changing their business model, they started making profits again, well, the screaming and shouting about piracy sort of died down.

Which is another point. Piracy is wrong, I agree. No justification, I agree. But, it isn't the *main* loss of income as we have all been led to believe by the large corporations. As we can see by profits lately, the large corporations are again making money and are on track (in a recession no less) to build up to the once large profits they made before. And in a small, niche market, piracy is hard pressed to take away the major profits. In a large scale world market, where major songs are distributed, yeah, piracy could possibly impact that large market in some way. I say could. But in a small, niche market that doesn't reach most of the world? How many customers of that market are going to search online (let alone find something) to download it for free? I never even knew about that Mary Heiny video until this thread.

So, what do the small businesses do? How do they change their model to fit in with tech? I really don't have those answers. I know they must change, but not how. We can't rely upon the old business models. I do know from watching the large corporations that if all we do is scream that piracy is the culprit, we'll get nowhere. This thread is a great place for people to talk about getting some answers.

Am I "saying that her sales will benefit from having the video on-line"? As a Devil's Advocate, I'm asking exactly that question. I have no clue. Did they? And if they did, can she capitalize on that? And how? As a business model, can you employ those who post full videos? Say, pay them 1% out of profit from all sales that can be attributed from their posting? I don't know. I don't have answers, only questions. How do you change the business model for small markets to make money in this changing tech world?

It seems that RIAA has chosen to mostly ignore piracy and concentrate on other paying business models, like ringtones. So what can we do as business owners in small, niche markets to start making money?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 09:30 AM   #72
Rennis Buchner
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 62
Japan
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post

Music. The RIAA's biggest cash cow was the CD. When the Internet hit, that cash cow started to become obsolete.
When it comes to RIAA and the major record labels I must admit I have a hard time feeling sorry for them as they have been burning the candle at both ends for years and years, basically ripping off the consumer on one end and the artists who make the music they release on the other. Back when I was in music school we had to go through all the details of the standard record contracts at the time and it most people who hear what really goes on with the money for cd sales are usually fairly shocked from nearly all angles reanging from for cost of production, to the retail prices and the actual cuts that most artists get. It is quite interesting and infuriating at the same time, but at the risk of massive thread drift I'll drop the subject here. With all that said, it still doesn't make ignoring copyright law as it is written today OK, even if I think the major labels and RIAA are also kind of getting what they deserve for years of lying and ripping damn near everyone off.

Rennis
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 10:17 AM   #73
Keith Larman
Dojo: AIA, Los Angeles, CA
Location: California
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,604
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
And in a small, niche market, piracy is hard pressed to take away the major profits. In a large scale world market, where major songs are distributed, yeah, piracy could possibly impact that large market in some way. I say could. But in a small, niche market that doesn't reach most of the world? How many customers of that market are going to search online (let alone find something) to download it for free? I never even knew about that Mary Heiny video until this thread.
There are no major profits in a small, niche market. There is only a trickle that comes in that will hopefully over time cover some of your costs. So *every* lost sale is significant.

BTW, I just typed in a search that included the words aikido, torrent and the name of a famous aikido researcher and got 5 pages of hits on Google. How do you suppose he feels about that? Do you think he's saying "Great -- how nice to get so much free advertising and distribution!"?

Yes, small niche market producers will have to get better at advertising. They'll have to post their own snippets to youtube and pray to god that no self-entitled geek posts major chunks of the video.

Sure, there are things to try and things to hope for. But... Reread Rennis' post. That's a great analogy for this sort of thing. Niche market. Oh, yes, people say they'd happily pay as long as they can download it first. But many don't. The smaller number who do pay and do so to ensure quality and support are in the minority. But when it is 100 million people with a .5% purchase rate... Well, that can work. But getting even a 1% buy rate after 1000 downloads on the other hand... Doesn't exactly pay the bills... And that 1000 downloads may be the entire interested community...

Even a few lost sales makes a huge difference to a niche market. It doesn't even fall into the range of accounting error for corporate stuff.

I similarly have no sympathy for the RIAA et al. They are also partly responsible for the problems faced by the small guy today due to their knee jerk reactions and absurd prosecutions. But the bottom line is still that millions of instances of copy rights are violated daily now due to new technology such as youtube and P2P nets. It is easy and the culture for the most part seems to think it is okay and now so many cite the "because it doesn't really hurt anyone" chestnut. No, the big guys like Metallica probably aren't hurting. Neither is Sony or the big labels.

But drop down the food chain a bit and things are very different. And no, we can't stop it. And likely there will be little we can do about it. So enjoy quality content while you can. Because pretty soon the only new video will be another squirrel water skiing...

And... The bottom line is the same. The biggest shame is the loss of respect for intellectual property and the accompanying attitude of entitlement.

Argh, I've spent way too much time on this thread and lord knows I really don't have the time to spend.

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 10:35 AM   #74
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Rennis Buchner wrote: View Post
With all that said, it still doesn't make ignoring copyright law as it is written today OK
Rennis
No, I agree. Never did argue that point. But, part of my long, horribly worded posts is the idea of looking at the RIAA, etc and saying, hey, look at what they did wrong and then look at how they changed to suit the newer technology to start making money again. And then ask the question, how can small business take advantage of their mistakes (in other words, to not make the same ones) to the newer technological world to make money?

We all (or most of us) agree posting the whole video from Mary Heiny was wrong. So let's step beyond that and figure out how to fix it in a way that not only helps Mary Heiny but the rest of us caught in a similar situation.

As large corporations evolved to once again make profits, is there anything we can take from their adaptations to suit us in our much, much smaller world?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 03:53 PM   #75
Carsten Möllering
 
Carsten Möllering's Avatar
Dojo: Hildesheimer Aikido Verein
Location: Hildesheim
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 932
Germany
Offline
Re: Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Vidoes of Copyrighted Material

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
We all (or most of us) agree posting the whole video from Mary Heiny was wrong.
Was it really "most of us"?

Wasn't there a big "it can't be helped" - fraction?
The words Tissier used.

We are not talking about big corporations or new technologies or how the world should or could be.

We are talking here about individuals violating copyrights by avoiding / hacking the copy protection and thus offending teachers of a MA called aikido.

And we are talking about paying 90 $ o not. Don't know whether the shihan would earn them if there was no youtube.
But the spectators save them. That's unoppoesed?

bah
Don't want to practice with those people.

Carsten

Last edited by Carsten Möllering : 07-01-2009 at 03:58 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:35 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2024 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate