twainer

In my views, it's mostly about balance rather than picking between divergent choices. Who says one can't be a firm leader also capable of soliciting and respecting the opinions of others?

The NY Giants won the SuperBowl as you note, with a famously dictatorial top-down coach [Tom Coughlin]; the NY Jets didn't even make the playoffs with a very horizontal come-as-you-are coach [Rex Ryan].

Interestingly, Coughlin didn't win any SuperBowls - he now has two - until he learned to loosen up. And by all appearances, the NY Jets won't win one until Ryan learn to tighten up.

Apologies for all the football references:) But I suspect Mr. Spolsky would understand very well.

I disagree that one cannot distinguish between the likely ethics of a bootstrap or VC-funded startup. Logically, when a business has its own customers as the only means of support, there is a greater symbiotic relationship - sustained by age-old notions of fair exchange. I work hard to give my customer what they need so that they continue to sustain my business. A big side effect is ethical behavior.

The entities most capable of unfair or exploitative behavior are those who no longer need value that relationship to their customer. Yes, in one case this applies to companies close to failure - no matter their funding source. But as noted elsewhere, the acceptance of investor money adds many layers and new definitions to what 'failure' is.

Failure is no longer just 'going out of business' - it morphs to mean things like not having hit a number, not having made money fast enough, being pushed out of a job because people have lost faith in you, etc. The options for failure proliferate in an investor-funded corporation.

It's that same irony when a Fortune 500 firm makes a nice profit but the stock tanks because they didn't make as much as someone thought they should. Profit = success in the natural world; but somehow it gets turned around to equal failure - oftentimes costing real people their real jobs and costing companies real value of their shares that they could use to conduct real business.

So, as investor-funded companies are allowed only a small number of ways to define success, they are always closer to failure, and are forever more aware of the benefits of unethical behavior - especially when that behavior is so well-shielded by the corporate veil.

Actual success rates aren't that important - I think the point can be examined more clearly simply by considering things in their true light: there is a big difference between having money you've got and having money someone has lent you. They may both be money, but one is a credit and one is a debt.

Practically, this is the difference between buying a house with cash or buying it with a mortgage. And that's part of DHH's point - the homeowner who buys their house with a mortgage they can pay only if everything goes right is hardly and barely the owner of their house or destiny.

I'd also add that the successful moon-shot companies don't justify the business model in-and-of-themselves either. An overnight success, beholden to investors with short time frames, that gets pushed to an IPO and into the arms of shareholders with an even shorter timeframe . . . not an attractive recipe in my opinion. Companies built slowly, organically, and personally are capable of more longer-term thinking and risk-taking then entities that more resemble a joint-venture between investors and contract workers glued together mostly by their dream of mutual exits. If everyone is thinking of how they are going to leave, the bonds are by definition very weak.

This is not an indictment of VCs per se - moreso of the short-term pressures that dominate when money is at stake and opportunity costs are forever pressing on the gas pedal.

In my eyes, your take on things is very far from the live-and-let-live stance that you appear to want to adopt. It's more like social engineering.

You continue to be free to do your art for free and without concern for profit; in no way does someone else doing their art for profit affect your ability to make your choice. So what gives you the right to champion something that 'removes economic concern from the art'? How does your desire not to have your output be property - totally your choice - square with your desire to deny choice to others?

Another point oft-heard is that 'people won't stop making art' - which is a selfish, parasitic argument if I have every heard one. For years I worked producing independent musicians - you might not pay for art that you experience, but I assure you someone does - there is no free lunch.

I have seen indie musicians burn tens of thousands trying to monetize their art; have seen marriages and relationships end - and careers end. My point here isn't about piracy - a much more important point is for consumers to respect the work that goes into the content they consume. The art you consume 'freely' may appeal to your idealistic side, as though you are removing commerce from art - but all you are actually doing is turning a blind eye to the cost. There is always someone paying a price so that you might have it for 'free'.

Once upon a time, people grew their own foods, hunted them - people worked with their hands -people had an intrinsic sense of the burden of production. I think one bad side-effect of the internet is that it has removed people so far from the means of production that they are incapable of appreciating the work that goes into what appears in front of them.

I am not trying to be too pejorative, but it really is like a child who is used to just stating their urge - whether for food, drink, or sleep - and having a benevolent force [parents] provide those things on-demand.

We have fair-trade products from a to z and yet the work of artists isn't worth .01. Really??

Agreed.

But in my conception of copyright reform there is a separation of copyright ownership law vs. legal protection of instances of when that copyright is monetized. The weakness in current copyright law isn't that it exists at all, it's that rights that properly benefit the individual transfer wholesale to the entity able to bring the idea to market. This needn't be the case. And a fix has beautiful consequences that align well with the major needs of the players involved. Though it would take agreement between both public, corporations, and government alike, the prime mover for such a parallel opt-in copyright system would be the individual themselves - which means such a system is both incremental and possible.

I appreciate your sentiments - I really do. From my perspective, the inability of people to involve themselves in discussion both prevents them knowing me and also finding a better solution. My views on copyright are far more nuanced and forward-thinking than the rants against copyright that fill 20% of HN on any given day.

Go ahead - look through all my comments I've written on IP. When you know what I am saying, you'll know I am not saying one should play by the rules - I never have in my life, that's for sure.

And yes - the current urge is selfish - as you point out it grows out of having taken a freedom - not having worked to be 'granted' anything - and then had that freedom 'revoked'.

There is always a greater good. I am 100% for us building one that benefits us as individuals rather than corporate entities. But the desire to wipe out IP does nothing to put economic power into the hands of creative individuals - what it empowers by a much greater factor is consumption. Last I checked we had enough of that as it was - and this is empty-calorie consumption that flows upward to the new corporate entities that can withstand the pennies to be made on it. It will never devolve power to the individual level.

A better system of IP exists - I have several detailed ideas of how it would function - and it basically revolves around treating the work of corporations differently from that of the individuals - separating ownership and monetization. A system built like this could work as an opt-in model to gradually replace current copyright - but it NEVER will without consumers playing by the much fairer rules. Yes - there are still rules - no system works without them.

If one can't meet the most basic burden of civil society by playing a game, however new, by mutually accepted rules, then there is no recourse - is there? And one can't, won't and shouldn't be taken seriously as a partner for change.

Enough with the cowardly and anonymous down-votes. If you've something wrong with what I've written, presumably you have a point to make of your own. Otherwise you are just confirming my point that people don't like any ripple in the construction of their own reality.

Sorry, but this post is based on a false notion that intellectual property is a beneficial crutch propping up only corporations and piggybacks on the idea that destruction of entrenched interests is always regenerative. That second point is likely so - but the battle isn't about finding new corporate captains to pay creative individuals - it's about how not to pay creative individuals.

I find the irony very sad that we are supposed to move from an industrial to a post-industrial knowledge-based economy - one presumably underpinned by the ability and right of individuals to monetize their knowledge . . . but people have had their free lunch and prefer it instead, perhaps as some salve.

I've said it 1000 times - if you don't like how corporations conduct their business, set something up yourself and if you have a better solution, you'll eventually find yourself a real market. The willy-nilly urge to destroy intellectual property rights for individuals and corporations alike is nothing more than a selfish catharsis - without any sense - neither common-sense, nor business-sense, nor a sense of history. When you take power away, it hurts the weakest first and the strongest last - all the while preserving the existing power structure. That's not a smart solution for anything.

Does Harvard Business School have a kindergarten class now?

Expiring copyright and open-sourcing are not the same thing - but they can have the same result. That's a point I think tech-people don't think about enough. If my business is the creative work I've done, what right does an expiring copyright have to put me out of business? By placing my work in the public domain?

Open-sourcing code - though different from an expiring copyright - would create the same result in a business based on the ownership and public non-availability of that code.

Regarding the 'simple contract': contracts mean very little - leverage means everything. Granting very short-term copyrights removes all leverage from the owner of the work. His commercialization window grows very small and he is dependent on organized outside entities to 'make it happen' for him.

Patent coverage isn't even as short as a ten-year term mentioned in the OP. And patents are usually produced by it integrated firms that already have a huge commercialization apparatus running 24/7.

I'm a new arrival in the tech industry; used to work in the content industry. I have NO love for corporations - none at all - it's just that I have really gotten to know the people on both sides and find it frustrating that the fight ends up being about which sides corporations can win - not how we can all win. I might add, as an aside, that we've seen with Google's recent turn that no corporation can be trusted to 'not be evil'.

I would certainly agree that the people that make up the content side of the tech industry - programmers, devs, designers, etc . - really do take open and shared contribution seriously, to an impressive extent.

But that's true in Hollywood too - forget about the business structure - the real work happens across thousands of small disparate shops with groups of people working together on the things they love. This is true from development all the way to post-production. It's an open and creative environment.

I do see a clear way that copyright can be reformed to create a win-win scenario. It's a lengthy idea and if I can find the time to put it on paper, I'll happily post it here.

The limiting of copyright and patent is supported by advocates of such limitations on the basis of benefits from the work accruing in a more fair balance between the individual and society. It is stated on this thread and many others that it is society that chooses to allow patent and copyright to exist exactly in order to bring forth the work of individuals. The good of society is placed above that of the creator of the work.

If one likes that idea, it works even better in the case of 'trade secrets'. Abolishing trade secrets and instead substituting a time limit like that of a patent would REALLY let those benefits flow to society at large. We force pharmaceutical firms to come up with new ideas every patent cycle; why should software - after all, it's 'eating the world' and is a highly-maleable product - be exempt from that process of creative renewal?

Case in point: Microsoft used it's dominance gained from Windows to directly stifle competition, to the point where the law had to get involved.

Google was a disruptive force initially, but now they have begun to tweak their algorithm to fortify the walled-garden they wish to build - while also using the Microsoft model of buying up potentially disruptive companies.

It's funny, I never down-vote people even when I don't agree with them. But that's just me - I am anti-censorship.

Though, I do thank you for taking the time to make an argument - I get down-votes for almost every unpopular viewpoint I take here on HN; 90% of the time the down votes are anonymous.

In order to get a sane compromise one first has to appear credible. The pro-copyright folks have no legitimacy around here because they demonstrably don't understand how the tech world works; clearly that disconnect extends to both sides.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If my business and my copyright are the same thing, why should I be forced to 'open-source' my business after ten years?

Neither trade secret nor trademark nor service marks protect my creative work; only copyright. But my copyright is my business just as the source code is the foundation of Joel's business. So what Joel thinks is good for my business is surely acceptable for his own.

If anti-copyright folks are as concerned as they claim to be about adding value back into society - and as quickly as possible at that - it makes overwhelming sense that valuable services such as software should be scrutinized first, before mere entertainment. We should obviously be talking about limiting a term on trade secrets - not just copyright - people will still have trademarks and service marks to defend their reputation and authenticity.

A modest proposal for Joel:

Ten years as a period for copyright? How about you go first.

Since the tech industry understands copyright so much better than everyone else it might be good for them to set an example and show all the 'old' dodo-like industries how it's done.

After ten years all code should be made open-source. Google has made plenty of money - and I think it's time that they release their algorithm so other innovative and disruptive companies can make better use of it. I mean, how many Google bikes can one ride behind?

Fogcreek has had a nice run too - surely some open-sourced FogBugz would be of great value in second and third world countries that have emergent tech sectors but can't possibly afford the cost of the real service? Certainly, even 10-year-old Fogbugz is going to help society a lot more than license-free copies of My Big Fat Greek Wedding [2002] or Stuart Little 2 [2002].

Anyway, since many of these places exchange rates means they could never purchase software in the first place, it's not like there would be any lost sales, right?

Oh another thing: very important:: a short term of copyright like a few years would be the biggest boon to Hollywood ever as they could simply sit and wait for works to drop into the public domain before turning around and producing them without paying the creators a penny. There would be tons of creators strung along via a studio option - just long enough till the work dropped into the public domain. It would harder than ever for individuals to profit from their creative work and easier than ever for Hollywood to make money off of it.

So - sorry to say - I'm a bit disappointed! But that's just my fault - assuming that people who knew so well the cure for the ills of the content industry would actually have an idea about how that world works. My bad.

PG is not using 'killing' in the sense of "finding ways [entertainment] that people prefer". To quote:

"The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise."

Trying to do things better than the next guy is a positivistic approach that I would applaud; excoriating a straw-man enemy with prejudicial overtones is tyrannical - especially when coming from a person in a position of power. The sentences I quote above could apply to ANYTHING: Washington DC, the banking industry, the VC industry.

The content from "Hollywood" forms the bulk of what people who file-share or pirate want. If there was no "Hollywood" there would be no piracy problem because there would be precious little content worth chasing after. As noted elsewhere, good content costs money - not because of copyright - but because it takes a lot of time, craft and people to perfect something. Anyone who has worked in the commercial creative arts knows this; espc. that the last 10% - the part that makes something really 'commercial' - takes 50% of the time and budget.

PG has a problem with this. A problem that apparently boils down to the fact that this creative work happens under the auspices of "Hollywood". What he is wishing for is that those 'creatives' would somehow come under the control of the tech-media universe instead:

"There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows, through new media (e.g. games) that look a lot like shows but are more interactive, to things (e.g. social sites and apps) that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention. Some of the best ideas may initially look like they're serving the movie and TV industries. Microsoft seemed like a technology supplier to IBM before eating their lunch, and Google did the same thing to Yahoo."

Come under the control of the tech-media conglomerates where I am sure they'll be much better treated:P

Trading one master for the next doesn't solve any of the problems of the creative individual in modern society - and THAT's the real problem I have with the PG post. A much better realization would be to say that if we could find a better way for the internet to equip and reward talented individuals so that they could exist outside of production systems - THAT would be a real accomplishment - and we wouldn't be stuck in the middle between the copyright and piracy.

I do applaud some commenters on this thread for sketching out some solutions that do try to mind the individual approach. But, as lovely as the Louis CK example was [as an example of doing a successful commercial production outside a ready system], it's telling that just as there was not a shred of organized old-media involved, neither was there a shred of organized new-tech. What made the Louis CK production successful was talent, time, craft, money and people.

And I will lambast PG and whomever else would ever suggest that those things need to be 'taught a lesson'. The way forward isn't by taking oaths to new Dons - it's by finding a way in the anonymous pool of the internet to treat each other as a worthy community.

I'm sorry but this kind of thread from the initial post on down to the echo chamber of opinions smacks more of Jonestown than Silicon Valley. I personally find it disturbing. The vast majority of this country enjoys some part of what comes out of Hollywood - whether they pay for it or not. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of HNers do as well. Is there some reason suddenly why a tyranny of the minority should be such a beautiful concept?

It's as senseless as requesting people should 'kill creativity' or 'kill talent' - not because Hollywood is their equal but because lots of talented and creative people work there. There is scant support around here for creative people having any right to their work as it is - so I am beyond curious as to the foundations of business models that find 'better ways to entertain people'.

People entertain people; with how badly the content industry is being savaged and prejudged - this thread as a glowing example - in 20 years a pub might be the best business model to capture that 'unique value proposition'.

SOPA is a disaster but there seems to be far too much groupthink going on to consider an obvious point: if people treated their internet with more respect we wouldn’t be ending up here.

Forget ‘copyrights’ - forget boogeyman #1 RIAA and boogeyman #2 TPB -- if there was even a modicum of respect for treating others - people who work hard to produce content - fairly, treating them the way you’d want to be treated yourself, things like SOPA would never have seen the light of day.

But instead we get movies posted to streaming and torrent sites before they are released. Entire albums leaked before they drop. iPhones jailbroken so apps can be ripped off. Game-consoles hacked so that people can play games without paying for the service. The list goes on and on and on. It’s a culture of petty thievery. The definition of sharing needs to change, for sure, but it's new definition will never be like the start of this paragraph.

What we have now is a totally unbalanced system. As noted elsewhere, it is like the older generation who thought a one-way relationship with planet earth was as reasonable as it was convenient - take whatever you need, dump whatever you don’t - nothing bad will ever come of it and if it does it’s always someone else’s problem.

“I don’t need to pay for this movie - plenty of people already have.” “I don’t need to recycle - so many people are already doing that.”

“So even if some bands don’t make it, there’ll always be other bands. They need to adapt” “We’ve got so many species, is it a big deal if we lose some? That’s evolution isn’t it?”

“I don’t feel bad ripping stuff off - I spend plenty of money on media anyway.” “I don’t feel bad about dumping garbage in the woods - I pay my taxes.”

When you live like that, you live with the consequences of having no regard for the balance of the system - and you reap the whirlwind you whip up.

I don’t support SOPA - but I also think the total lack of respect for the side of content-producers is a miserable state of affairs - and amounts to a enacted prejudice against people who produce content, shamefully defended with the language of equality and freedom. If one wants to release stuff for free and seed their own torrents - they have every right to choose that ‘business model’ - but to force that choice, to force artists into situations that make them into sharecroppers - is consumerism every bit as wicked and morally empty as capitalism has been. “Let them eat cake!” [Let them sell t-shirts] Does it make it okay because Ashton Kutcher says so? To cover his investments and enhance his street cred?

I don't have a solution for SOPA. I do have ideas about how to ease piracy in a positive way - but no idea stands up when most people don't give a damn - and they don't. Reading some of the exculpatory comments on SOPA/piracy threads has made that embarrassingly clear.

Something shady going on with this petition? I logged in - first time every looking at it - and it says "You've already signed this petition."

???

The SOPA outcry reminds me of global warming - specifically the generation that doesn’t believe in it, that scoffs at the notion that man could even affect mother nature.

That generation seems so backwards and hubrisitic: the crazy idea that one could just take and take and take without giving something back, without respect for the balance of the system. “My actions don’t count because mother nature will always figure a way to make it all work out okay.” Could there be a more juvenile train of thought?

That’s the fundamental problem when it comes to content; that’s the fundamental problem when it comes to ‘business models’ - not the RIAA or MPAA or even TPB - but the hordes of people who have too little respect for the people who create the content that is voraciously consumed. Hordes that take advantage of a system and predictably cry out when anything threatens their spot at the teet.

The earth, of course, doesn’t ask for money - just for respect - respect shown when each individual asks “Am I hurting you?” and when each individual wonders “Is there a better way I could be doing this?”

A lot of folks fancy themselves the smartest person in the room, but there is a lesson in respect for others that needs to be learned before true success can be realized. Put away the false dichotomy of how things used to be and how you want them to be; there is a real way they can be, and a balanced way they should be.

I remain optimistic. But then, it's sometimes tempered; Upton Sinclair said it well:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Yes, and frankly the micro-managing boredom. From my perspective, any system like this is starting to serve the needs of the platform in place of the needs of the consumer.

My car already has a light for when the oil needs to be changed. I don't need an oil-changer showing up at my door or the service-station calling me.

We have to fight for every ounce of privacy these days - why should anyone be expected to turn the whole life of their family into, essentially, an EZ-Pass?? No thanks . . .

I don't say anywhere that the full tail doesn't exist, do I? I simply point out that it's very lucrative for the platform provider and not very compelling for a content provider.

What counts is attention not access: there is no long tail of attention, full stop.

As I have posted elsewhere here, as a fact-on-the-ground 'discovery' is highly over-rated and over-emphasized. It is much easier to connect with 100 people deep enough to get them to come to a show than to connect with 1,000 or 10,000.

This idea that music should and can function like spam email doesn't actually work in the real world.

The long tail exists for the user. For the content provider it is a myth. The long tail rewards platforms that deliver the content, not those that participate in it.

An example from the world of books:

http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/the-myth-of-the-99-cent-book/

Some facts on the ground here are just wrong - although the intuition feels correct: "The bigger the audience you have the more you can make from live shows, which is your staple income unless you're the Rolling Stones, Sting, the Beatles, etc."

As someone who has been in the business I can tell you that touring is very expensive and complicated - especially when you get into the middle-zone for a band where they want to tour regionally rather than just play out in their home town. Touring has become more competitive for bands and listeners-attention as well. Even for bands with small ambitions the amount of so-called 'fans' is often uselessly misleading because you can get a false sense of how committed a 'fan' is and how many true fans you actually have.

On the higher end, take an artist like Imogen Heap - who has a huge, cult following, has had some hits on the radio, won a Grammy, has a very lean production situation, and plays out by herself. That sounds like the perfect situation in the modern scenario - but she decided not to tour after her last Grammy-winning album because it was too expensive.

Touring does not in any way solve any of the problems of people not paying for music.

As far as streaming services being viewed as a means of discovery and creation - that benefit is for the listener and not the artist. There is a hugely compelling argument to be made that the enormous and chronic amount of choice actually prevents people from forming deeper relations to things.

To give one example, drawn from an Economist article maybe 5 months back - in a British supermarket shoppers were given a choice between a table with 6 jams to try or 25 jams to try. In either case, anyone who tried jams was given a coupon for the jam of their choice. Many more people stopped by the table with 25 jams, but the redemption rates were hugely different: 30% for the those who stopped by the table with 6 and 3% for those who stopped by the table with 25.

One can debate it many ways, but there can be no denying that the range of choice and access has fundamentally changed how a consumer relates to the possibilities in their environment. I deal directly with plenty of indie bands: exposure hardly matters because it does not equal attention. That's what boosters of the free-model don't appreciate. Things that people get for free are assigned less attention, less care than things they have to decide, and pay for, and own. That's the bitter truth. If you want a fan's attention, inspire them to pay for something - and not .30 for a download, but $10 for an album.

My counsel to young bands is to try and do just that - charge real money and make real product. Then at least you know where you stand. Chugging along on a illusion of fandom by getting people to 'like' you and stream your music for free is a lesson in futility.

Spotify is more like a search engine for music. It's a nice thing for the user, but truly meaningless for an artist. The new people making it big are doing so in spite of things like Spotify, not because of them - and that hardly makes Spotify qualifiy as an asset/savior in my book.

Think about it: 1 million spins on Spotify would gross you $2000 - which is a small budget to produce a truly professional single track. 20 million spins would throw off enough money to give you the budget [$40,000] that was granted to low-end rap acts in the late 90s for an album-length release - not counting promotion of any sort of course.

Consider that 20% of our mythical 20 million spins were actual iTunes dloads instead of Spotify listens. A band - even one on a major label - would earn well over $300,000 - and from a single track.

No matter how adroit the magical thinking the truth is the same as it has always been: sales = money.

I'm not sure why you'd pick a trivial issue on purpose because - no offense - it doesn't make for a very compelling argument. In your specific case, the effort to rip a movie to avoid watching the FBI warning etc is a bad deal for you: it takes far longer to rip and burn than to just do something else for the ten seconds until the movie loads.

Piracy advocates/apologists can make a case that piracy is about convenience but there is no whitewashing that it is as much about paying. I deal with this all the time with artists I work with. Here's one email I received just this morning:

"I'm very tired and down right now. I'm getting sick of being contacted by companies pretending to help me, then asking for thousands upon thousands of dollars for everything. There are so many people feeding from struggling indie artists. Things are so bad right now in music. I actually don't think it's possible to do all this on your own but I'm really trying.

The biggest thing that need to change is the general public's attitude towards new music right now. They expect it for free and don't have any respect towards the amount of work you do and how much it costs to make it. They still think 'signed' artists are 'real' and we are just beggars on the street in comparision."

This is an indie artist who has 1,000s of fans, is high on the internet-radio charts in his area, etc. He has spent tens of thousands of dollars to put a good product out and he spends literally 60-80 hours a week on fan contact etc.

I'm sorry: piracy sucks. People can crow about the labels etc all they want but they have changed their business model: they sign 360-deals with artists because recorded music sales are a loss-leader; then they promote acts like Justin Bieber because they know 13-yr-olds are more likely to a) pay for music and b) much more importantly, buy all the associated merchandise that feeds back into their 360 deal. So if you think they are 'dinosaurs' you're wrong; they've already changed to service the market that exists - leaving lots and lots of independent musicians with no pipeline into wider exposure. And if one thinks being on the internet is 'wider exposure' I have a bridge to sell you;)

As much research into human value strategies has shown - the truth is that people dislike for paying for things increases dramatically when they think others aren't paying; that is, when there isn't fairness going on. It's not talked about enough - that piracy 'poisons the well' by leaving people who would pay for things feeling like rubes for doing so.

This particular artist has 1000s of fans who listen to his work several times a week; he sells a digital download version of his album for $3 - yes the same $3 that will get you a half-hamburger at McDonalds - and he has sold zero - literally ZERO. Before any debate about the quality of his work or fans or exposure - all of which are well above-average for indies I have worked with - the ugly truth is that people don't pay when they can get around it - it doesn't matter what the amount.

So, with respect to all, complaints about "inconveniences" are not compelling at all when I know how much blood, sweat, and tears artists are putting into their work. Pro-pirates like to tout how 'free' makes things more accessible - but they are totally blind to the fact that 'free' keeps as much content inaccessible as it leaves legacy content accessible. At best, it's a zero-sum game, a choice - and as such it's no point of support for why one way is better than another.

As I have said many, many times - I'd much prefer a world with things worth buying than one where everything is for free.

Too many partners in my opinion. MTV blew up not only because of the subject matter but also because it was one of the only channels that had a youth market at all. It was like the internet as a TV channel - metaphorically-speaking.

It's very telling that as cable TV became a fractured medium with 100s of 'extra' channels, channels like MTV had to turn to the me-too and less-expensive/higher-margin programming of reality shows and also to the proliferation-per-channel idea as well - where there are now - what - 6 MTV channels. 1980's MTV literally gave us a music movement; 2011 version is mostly Jersey Shore and Teenage Mom . . .

It seems an odd choice for Youtube/Google to set up an old format of business as the straw man they're 'disrupting'. If one really wanted to disrupt the endless seas of mediocre, center-of-the-bell-curve content, they'd have to focus much more narrowly, invest much more heavily, and share the proceeds much more generously. I'm not saying I know the numbers, but none of these are a characteristic of Youtube or Google when it comes to content - that's for sure. The sheer volume of their partnership agreements implies a see-which-spaghetti-sticks approach.

The article would like to imply that Youtube is going to move [nobly] beyond it's root essentially as a distribution system. Distributors, as a business, care about 'good enough'; they rarely bother with 'great'. In my opinion, Youtube/Google have had a long free ride on the content of others - both user-generated and the kind that 'fell off the back of a truck'. I hardly see them as a capable partner for truly creative content production.

Anyway, Lady Gaga is the new MTV :P

I am not sure either, but I would agree. Insurance/liability and licensing are significantly more complicated when one is driving for a business and transporting passengers. So-called 'commercial' driver's licenses face much more stringent regulation and subject the driver to health+saftey standards.

Quite right. I have followed investment events for quite some time and I cannot recall a shadier-looking company hitting the open market. It really boggles the mind: WHO is buying this? WHO is telling others to buy this? I know Warren Buffet isn't looking at any of this . . .