DailyDirt: Baby Language Development
Facebook Comment Leads To Arrest In Zimbabwe

Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question

Copyright

from the ah,-discovery... dept

Tue, Mar 8th 2011 07:13pm -

We were a bit surprised last summer when the major music publishers piled on to the bandwagon and sued Limewire. After all, the major record labels (who own most of the major publishers anyway) were already involved in a lawsuit with Limewire and had won a pretty complete victory over the file sharing system. Having the publishers sue as well seemed like just a way to try to squeeze even more money out of a dead shell. Apparently, the publishers just figured that whatever they got out of this was easy money. What they didn’t expect was that Limewire, dead as it is, would fight back pretty hard and during discovery demand actual evidence that the publishers really hold the copyrights they claim to hold (something that isn’t always clear once you dig into the details). So it’s interesting to see that a settlement has been reached, and the publishers’ portion of the lawsuit is effectively over. Many reports seem to be assuming that Limewire gave up here, but there’s a good chance that it was the publishers who backed out, realizing they had no interest in opening up a discovery process that might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction. In the meantime, they’ll leave it to their parent companies to continue the battle to try to get whatever cash they can out of Limewire.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: limewire

207 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
207 Comments
vbevan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ummm, well the article isn’t sure who settled either if you read it:

“Many reports seem to be assuming that Limewire gave up here, but there’s a good chance that it was the publishers who backed out, realizing they had no interest in opening up a discovery process that might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction.”

I have to agree, headlines that contradict their own articles should be left for Fox News, not Techdirt.

vbevan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Getting offtopic, but focusing on the word Fear in FUD is taking it a bit too literally. FUD is really just a form of propaganda where you use possibly (probably?) false information to influence the audience (blog readers in this case).

Mike has no solid evidence as to why the case was settled (as was stated in the article – unless he has access to sealed files and isn’t telling us), so while it is his opinion, stating it in the headline like it has been presents it as fact. So in this case, I’d say using the FUD acronym is entirely appropriate, since it’s anti-“music publisher” propaganda.

And while I am generally an avid reader of techdirt and love most of the articles, this type of writing makes me very cynical of the objectivity of this blog.

Atkray (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I’m not sure on what you definition of “objective” is, I’m going to guess you mean something along these lines:

adjective
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

I do not know what you have been reading but it only takes a day or two to see that Mike has a definite position and he uses his site as a place to voice it. This is not a news site it is not presented to the reader as place to go to gain general knowledge or to catch up on current events.

To his credit he encourages dissenting opinions and discussion. He actively encourages those who disagree to bring substantive arguments backed by fact. Unfortunately few rise to the challenge, but I digress.

People like to throw the term FUD at Mike because it tends to provoke an emotional response in people, much like it did with you.

Headlines are meant to grab attention and raise interest in the article. They are not a synopsis.

Based on the ongoing fight Limewire is putting up, the fact that this ended during discovery tends to support the opinion that Limewire probably held firm and the other party (in this case the music publishers) gave up. The headline reflects that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

To his credit he encourages dissenting opinions and discussion.

No he doesn’t. If you disagree, you are uneducated, foolish, or being childish.

Accept it: This post is FUD at it’s finest. It’s a lie made up by Mike, with nothing to back it up. It’s his opinion, it isn’t reality, but he is trying to pass it off as such.

In this case, Mike is being rather bald faced about his fabrications.

Daph says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Fear? I am remarkably unfrightened by this post. Am I missing something?

Uncertainty? Well, yeah, it’s right there in the article that Mike doesn’t know for sure what’s up, he’s wondering if it’s publishers backing off or Limewire based on what’s gone on previously in the case. He’s allowed to wonder.

Doubt? Hm, doubt…I don’t see it as applicable. Wondering isn’t doubting so much as it is…just wondering.

*shrug*

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Daph, we covered this one last week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

If Mike was wondering, he wouldn’t make solid statements like “Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question”. That is a statement of fact that just isn’t fact. Where are the “maybe” words in there? Perhaps? Potentially? Could be? Nope. Just fact.

How about ” there’s a good chance that it was the publishers who backed out”? That is creating uncertainty. It’s also a silly statement, because it is equally likely (because we have no facts) that the Limewire dude decided to settle, and thus save some of the money he made while operating the illicit business. By making such a one sided observation, he is putting the reading the mindset that only one side had a reason to “back down”. Further, we don’t even know if there was any backing down, perhaps it is a simple case of someone realizing how much it would cost to carry the case to the surpreme court, and decides not to be the patsy for all the other file sharing systems.

We don’t know. FUD doesn’t require “fear”, rather it is the process of trying to put so much smoke in the air that you can’t see the truth even when it is in front of you, and rather you buy the “truth” being fed to you. It is putting out unfavorable speculation or unfavorable “opinions framed as facts” that can change people’s perceptions of what is true and what is not.

What is really disappoint is that Mike seems unable to admit that he over did it. If he blows it this bad on a simple, straight story like this, can you imagine what he has done to some of the more complex stories he has tried to “cover” (or cover up, depending on how you look at it?)

(smart people will notice the use of FUD here to make a point).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Your comment presupposes I “blew” this story. Do you have any evidence to support that? 🙂

Why did you address the points he was making, Mike? Funny how people think you invite dissent. You do no such thing. In this case, you simply ignored it and retorted with a joke. Why not address the substance of his post? Why not act like a proper leader on your own board?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Your comment presupposes I “blew” this story. Do you have any evidence to support that? 🙂

Yup. There isn’t any credible, quotable, source to support the angle you have reported. Your headline isn’t true, and the entire story is written to say that Limewire stood up completely and the music industry folded like a house of cards.

You have nothing to support it. I don’t have to prove some “other side” of the story to prove that you made a clear mis-statement.

Sorry, you blew the story.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Yup. There isn’t any credible, quotable, source to support the angle you have reported

Hollywood Reporter has the same info. I heard it independently from sources I know.

What credible info do you have that I am wrong?

You have nothing to support it. I don’t have to prove some “other side” of the story to prove that you made a clear mis-statement.

Actually, you do.

Sorry, you blew the story.

All in the eye of the beholder, and I will say that one of us is working with more knowledge than the other.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Hollywood Reporter has the same info.

Such a liar. THR only reports that going through the discovery would be a “pain.” I take this to mean costly.

You then FUDed it out to the extreme and said that they’re “afraid” and that discovery “that might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction.”

You’re so full of shit, Mike. Don’t think we don’t notice.

Daph says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

So, essentially, a question mark on the end of the headline would have quelled all the FUD-Ruckus?

I stand by my post. If you use the term, it should actually apply, and IN MY PERSONAL OPINION it does not apply in this instance.

Perhaps you might find or even invent (!) a new set of letters to more accurately describe how you feel about these kinds of things.

In conclusion, GoshGollyJeebus, can’t a guy ruminate on his own blog anymore?! What is this, Turkey?!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

So, essentially, a question mark on the end of the headline would have quelled all the FUD-Ruckus?

Yes, it would have. Exactly.

Now ask yourself: what kind of person would write a headline like the one at the top of the page?

A person that has absolutely no regard for morals or the truth whatsoever.

This kind of stuff happens every day here.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

A person that has absolutely no regard for morals or the truth whatsoever.

I have to say that I really take offense at this comment. I believe I am an extremely moral person, and someone who believes the search for truth is quite important.

I’m not sure why you can’t just say you disagree with me and discuss the actual points at issue here without making up stuff about me. It’s really quite odd.

I’m happy to discuss things with you and to debate the issues. What I don’t understand are these random and malicious attacks on myself — especially when they seem to lack any substantive point in response to what I have written.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Anyone who disagrees with patent and copy’right’ laws wrongfully gets their criticisms censored from corporate controlled public airwaves , airwaves that should rightfully belong to the public and not the corporations, and they also get their opinions censored from monopolized cableco infrastructure, cableco infrastructure that the govt grants corporations monopoly power over. At least Mike allows criticisms on his blog. The corporations censor criticism on many information distribution channels and they use the government as a tool to enforce their monopoly power over such channels in order to maintain censorship of dissenting views. You claim that Mike is intolerable of dissenting views, despite the fact that he is perfectly OK with them and allows them on his blog, but it is really you and your ilk that are intolerable of dissenting views.

“If you disagree, you are uneducated, foolish, or being childish.”

This is just a bunch of FUD. IP maximists resort to far more personal attacks than others and the fact that you have to resort to accusing others of being intolerant of dissenting views when you in fact are far less tolerant is just more evidence of your intolerance. You can’t argue the issues, so you have to resort to accusing others of that which you are far more guilty of.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“To his credit he encourages dissenting opinions and discussion.

No he doesn’t. If you disagree, you are uneducated, foolish, or being childish.”

I’ll ask what I asked in a previous post last week, where I (predictably) received no response – when did Mike personally call an honestly dissenting poster any of these things?

I have not personally seen Mike attack anybody personally in his responses here, unless they’re an obvious troll (and what’s more childish than deliberately trolling?). I have seen him engage in debate with dissenting opinions, but sadly posters who honestly hold differing beliefs tend to be in the minority among the trolls and cotnrarians here.

So, I ask again: please cite one instance where Mike has personally attacked somebody in this way, where that person was stating an honest opinion and not trying to troll?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

And while I am generally an avid reader of techdirt and love most of the articles, this type of writing makes me very cynical of the objectivity of this blog

That’s because the blog is not objective. It’s my opinion. Always has been and always will be. But my opinions are based on facts, and there has been a strong sense from those involved in this case, with whom I’ve talked off-the-record, that what my opinion as to what happened is accurate.

But, again, this blog is not objective and never has been. So I’m not sure why you expected objective reporting.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Getting offtopic, but focusing on the word Fear in FUD is taking it a bit too literally.”

Focusing on the topic as something other than opinion is taking it too literally. It can reasonably be assumed that what Mike writes is his opinion, he doesn’t have to write “in my opinion” before every sentence for it to be reasonably assumed to be the case. This is especially the case since this is mostly an opinionated blog.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Mike has no solid evidence as to why the case was settled”

Again, this is his opinion. There is evidence that his opinion is correct. Is there absolute proof? No. Absolute proof is impossible. There is some circumstantial evidence. Yes, I’ll even grant that the evidence isn’t necessarily that strong and that Mike might be wrong, but there is evidence that he is right and, based on the evidence, it’s not unreasonable to hold Mike’s opinion. and Mike is merely expressing his opinion. He’s not saying that it has been proven with solid evidence, he is merely expressing it as his opinion. You may hold another opinion. Or maybe you don’t hold an opinion. Maybe your position is that you don’t know why the music publishers settled and that you don’t think there is strong enough evidence to conclude that Mikes opinion is correct. and you know what, I won’t necessarily disagree with you there either. I think such is also a reasonable opinion. I don’t claim to know why the music publishers settled myself, I do think Mikes opinion has merit, but I don’t think it’s conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But your problem is that you are completely intolerant of anyone who expresses an opinion that disagrees with yours. You are selfish, you only value your own opinion and anyone that disagrees with you must be spreading FUD and shouldn’t be allowed to express an opposing opinion whatsoever. This just goes to show the mentality of IP maximists. So uncompromising and one sided, its either their way or the highway. No one else should be allowed to express a dissenting opinion, there is no middle ground with these people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

FUD is “fear, uncertainty and doubt”; IOW, what this blog deals in every day. The headline is not just an example of that, but pretty much a lie, as Masnick has no idea why the suit was settled.

The owner of Limewire owns a hedge fund and numerous other businesses, thanks to his ripping off muscians and labels, so he should be sued as much as is legally possible.

Planespotter (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Ripping off musicians and labels”…. he ran a firm that used totally legitimate file sharing protocols to allow people to share THEIR files, the fact that the users of the software used it to to share copyright files isn’t his problem, or at least shouldn’t have been had the industry not already bought the judiciary.

If he is as guilty as you seem to believe why isn’t he serving a prison sentence? Why did they only hit him in the wallet and not by restricting his liberty?

…. and you say that Mike’s posts are FUD, jeez!

…. and just to reiterate what has been said hundreds of times on hundreds of posts by Mike, the Techdirt team of posters and the people who comment here Techdirt is opinion, some backed by facts, some on hunches, this isn’t a newspaper or a news programme if you don’t agree with what he is saying provide your own opinion backed by fact/hunches and argue your point, no one forces anyone to come and read the blog.

Anonymous Coward says:

OMG Mike, can you not control yourself?

there’s a good chance that it was the publishers who backed out, realizing they had no interest in opening up a discovery process that might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction.

There is an equally good chance that monkey’s might fly out of Wayne’s ass (Wayne’s World). Do you have any, any, even the slightest sensation of something to back this up, or are you once again using your “wishful thinking” mode to put words in other people’s mouths?

Your opinion is almost actionable.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There is an equally good chance that monkey’s might fly out of Wayne’s ass (Wayne’s World).

Actually, if we were making odds in Vegas, I’d say the chances of the two things are quite different. Multiple people very close to the case have indicated that what I described here is what happened. Is it definite? No. Is there a decent chance it happened? Yes. That’s why I shared that info. Many of the other reports are claiming things that do not seem supported by what I’ve heard from folks very close to this case. One prominent site claimed that this settlement was with the *labels* when it was not.

Your opinion is almost actionable.

Interesting. By “actionable” I assume you mean for a claim of defamation. Would you care to elaborate on what makes it “actionable”?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

What would make it actionable?

“Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question”

You state this as fact. It is not. It is your opinion, but the way you state it makes it look like the platiffs are scared or gave in.

If you tell lies about people (or corporations) they are very likely to get upset about it, and ask you to correct it.

The reality is that the Limewire people could have been told the simple truth: Settle with us for less than the legal fees it is going to cost you to take this to the surpreme court.

Either cite your sources, or admit you blew it and once again over-reached on your headline and claims.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You state this as fact. It is not. It is your opinion, but the way you state it makes it look like the platiffs are scared or gave in.

It’s a headline, and the details are explained in the post itself. That’s not actionable. Also, recognize that for it to be actionable it would need to be both false and malicious. And any attempt to take action over it would open the publishers up for discovery in which we could establish whether or not it’s true.

If you tell lies about people (or corporations) they are very likely to get upset about it, and ask you to correct it.

Indeed. So let’s see what happens, shall we?

The reality is that the Limewire people could have been told the simple truth: Settle with us for less than the legal fees it is going to cost you to take this to the surpreme court.

Yes. That’s a possibility. Here’s why it’s unlikely: this lawsuit was the sideshow anyway. The costs associated with it were minimal compared to the bigger lawsuit with the labels. It could have happened, but, again, there seems to be little to support that’s what happened.

Either cite your sources, or admit you blew it and once again over-reached on your headline and claims.

You appear to be unfamiliar with how journalism tends to work. I talk to lots of people in the industry on background or off the record. I have no requirement to reveal sources, especially not to an anonymous commenter.

All I will say is I most certainly did not overreach here. We’ll leave it at that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Given how messed up our legal system is, I would have to agree with you. Mike should be more careful and he probably should put the words “in my opinion” behind some things. Not that he should have to, but our broken legal system can be very unpredictable at times, the laws can sometimes be ambiguous and broadly interpreted, and judges have been known to make up rulings based on no laws to back them up.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Let’s see how long it takes for that AC to correct his potentially actionable lie.

And the other AC above also forgot to add “in my opinion”:
>> [In my opinion] One day you will learn the value of using “in my opinion” once in a while.

Question. Are we really going to see how long it takes or was that just my thinking wishfully?

Question. Did the top AC and the lower AC really forget as I and Ben stated, or was “in my opinion” left out for other reasons?

For want of a “?” (in the title) the war (by AC) was lost.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Ah, now I see! It’s perfectly fine to post speculative BS if it’s just in a headline! But of course! Jeez, what kind of idiot would read a headline and assume maybe it was well researched and independetly verified with multiple sources?

You know, like REAL journalists do before they publish something.

On the bright side, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. At Fox.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Ah, now I see! It’s perfectly fine to post speculative BS if it’s just in a headline! But of course! Jeez, what kind of idiot would read a headline and assume maybe it was well researched and independetly verified with multiple sources?

Well, there’s you. But that’s about it.

This is a blog. I post my opinions. Deal with it.

You know, like REAL journalists do before they publish something.

Yeah. And did you research that this is an opinion blog before stating your opinion about it? No? Hypocrite.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Speaking of bad suppositions, what would make you think I’ve never been here before? As I’ve said elsewhere here, I have no problem with your opinion. It’s the headline as assertion of fact that makes my teeth itch.

Not only have I been here before, I’ve been involved in these issues since before there was a TechDirt. In fact, I wrote the very first print story on MP3 technology, in English, anyway, way back in mid ’97, when typing “mp3” into Yahoo – there was no Google – only returned a couple dozen hits. If you’d like, you can email me and I’ll point you to it.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I witnessed something similar as this in another blog where a headline would have been more accurate if it had included a “?” at the end, and critics of the blog’s author went nuts.

If people read Mike’s responses, he states that he has sources whom he believes are close to the matter and would support his claims. He also states that the blog posting clarifies confusion one may have over the title. He further points out that if those mentioned in the headline decide to seek action for this blog posting, not only are they likely to lose (the context details covered in the posting itself and the nature of a blog), but they would have to deal with a discovery process to get to the bottom of this.

[IANAL, and I don’t know about the legal process details.]

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’ve already left some overnight voicemails and sent a few emails to see if Masnick should be sued for defamation.

Let me know how that goes. Also, let me know if you left the same messages concerning The Hollywood Reporter, which is saying the same thing I said.

In the meantime, you should suggest they refresh themselves on California’s anti-SLAPP law, and the fact that any such lawsuit opens them up to discovery on these issues.

I’m perfectly willing to connect you or anyone from the publishers to my lawyers who will be happy to discuss this with them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Actually, re-reading the headline, you actually made two factual errors:

“Music Publishers Settle With Limewire”. How do you know this to be fact? Isn’t it just as possible that “Limewire settles with Music Publishers”? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “Limewire and Music Publishers reach settlement”?

Then there is “Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question”. Do you have any facts to back this up, or only opinion? You suggest you have “credible sources”, but you don’t want to mention them. Could they be the Limewire dude himself, feeding you his view of the story? After all, he wouldn’t want to be seen as backing down. Could it be “according to Limewire, the music publishers are Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question”?

Two statements of fact, neither supported by anything other than you opinion. Like I said, keep the lawyer on speed dial.

Oh yeah, considering your servers are in Utah, that might the point of publication. Your “anti-slapp” rules wouldn’t apply there, would they?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Hollywood Reporter isn’t saying anything of the sort:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/music-publishers-settle-copyright-case-165298

This is why people say you have no morals: you think it’s ok to lie about everything and anything; that, and the fact you defend the indefensible immoral behavior of stepping all over other people’s rights.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

The Hollywood reporter is saying something of the sort. And I quote:

Many of the publishers … may have thought that getting a similar summary judgment order would be easy. Instead, LimeWire fought hard, insisting that the plaintiffs turn over appropriate documents proving their ownership over allegedly infringed published works.

…the new settlement will save music publishing divisions the pain of going through this discovery.

That last quote is particularly important. It could be that the reporter is just throwing that in as an offhand comment. “Looks like they saved some money” type of a thing. It could be that the publishers are happy that Limewire settled since they won’t have to go through that expense. But it could also be just what Mike said. It could mean that the publishers were happy to settle so that they wouldn’t have to prove copyright ownership.

I’m not saying which it is, only that it could be any one of those things. In which case, you’re going to have to retract what you’ve said (“Hollywood Reporter isn’t saying anything of the sort”) and admit that you either didn’t read the entire article before jumping to a conclusion, or that you read it with such a one tracked mind that no other interpretation was possible, or that you’re lying and hoping no one will call you out on it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

The quote is important, but it is also important in linking. They don’t say “they settled to avoid discovery”, rather they say that won’t have to deal with discovery as a result of the settlement. Mike is attempting to show it as a cause, they are referring to it as an effect.

They also won’t have to spend millions more in court, and support a legal challenge that might end up in the supreme court. The sheer costs of doing such a thing might have been more than any of the parties really wanted to face.

We don’t know. Not even Mike knows (but he thinks he does).

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

It’s true that there isn’t enough information to be conclusive. Which is exactly why I was pointing out to the other AC that their statement that “Hollywood Reporter isn’t saying anything of the sort” is actually not true. What the Hollywood reporter said could mean various things, one of which could support Mike’s statements, and as such, the Hollywood Reporter could be construed as saying such things.

Again, I’m not saying whether it is saying those things or not, only that it could be construed as such, and thus what the other AC said was not true. So the other AC still has to admit that either he jumped to a conclusion, read the article from only his point of view, or stated a lie.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The Hollywood Reporter piece makes it clear that it is only opinion, they didn’t headline their story in a way to create fact that cannot be confirmed. They put a whole bunch of information and laid out some potential actions.

What they mentioned (and Mike didn’t) was that each side agreed to pay their own legal fees. That sort of agreement, from what I have seen, seems to come when both sides think they have merit, and that the process for finding out which one is right is too far for either.

I could also, as an example, picture the Limewire guy basically saying that he will use all of the monies that could be obtained in this manner to fight the lawsuit, and that at the end there would be no money to get, and nothing but legal bills to pay.

It appears that both sides agreed to call it off rather than make their lawyers rich.

See how I did that? All of it is “appears”,”my opinion” and “I could picture”. In other words, opinion. What Mike wrote (especially has the headline) was not fact, but opinion stated as fact, which he does often enough. Even his “in the story backpedal” makes it appear that it is fact, when it is not.

There is no jumping to conclusion, just calling out Mike for making sh-t up again.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

You’re conflating two different issues. The original issue brought up about the headline being presented as fact is being discussed in other posts. I’m referring only to the AC who made a claim about what the Hollywood Reporter article said. To make a claim that it “isn’t saying anything of the sort” is to say that nowhere in the article is there no mention of anything related to what Mike is saying.

You can argue about whether what they said agrees with or disagrees with Mike. Many are already having that discussion in these threads. I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that they said something “of the sort”, which doesn’t look favorably on the AC I originally replied to.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

There is no jumping to conclusion, just calling out Mike for making sh-t up again.

I love it. You go on for 6 paragraphs about how it’s important to preface opinions by stating it’s an opinion, and then you make an opinionated statement (that I’m making shit up), without doing exactly what you claimed was necessary.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. But it amuses greatly.

Keep it up, buddy.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

But your headline is made-up bullshit. That’s not opinion, that’s fact

Heh. It’s neither, but seeing your desperation level increasing amuses me.

We’re now pushing 200 comments here, and not a single person has presented anything to disprove the points I raised. Gee… I wonder why.

Also notice the guy promising a defamation lawsuit has gone quiet (on this thread, he’s still active elsewhere).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Heh. It’s neither, but seeing your desperation level increasing amuses me.

You haven’t presented any evidence that the publishers settled because they were “afraid” or because discovery “might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction.”

It’s all bullshit without evidence, Mike. Faith-based FUD.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I just love IANAL expertise…

“In order for it to be a lie it would have to be knowingly false.”

Not quite. The trigger is wether ones knows or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was untrue. Subsequently Mike makes it clear he knows he didn’t know, which means he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN his headline was at best misleading, if not ouright false.

That said, this isn’t the kind of thing over which anyone would sue. Ask for a correction? Maybe. Sue? No. Piss off the editor/publisher who probably does have a journalism degree and probably does understand basic journalistic ethics? Almost certainly.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“The trigger is wether ones knows or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was untrue. “

That’s not the definition of lie. Maybe defamation, but not lie. The common and dictionary definition is one who tells something that they know is false. Otherwise, you’re just going by some definition that’s practically unique to you and that most people don’t subscribe to.

Besides, there is no way that Mike can reasonably know that his opinion is false here. There is really little to no evidence to suggest that his opinion is false and there is some circumstantial evidence to suggest it might be true.

But I suppose you like to misuse the word lie to spread FUD.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“That’s not the definition of lie. Maybe defamation, but not lie. The common and dictionary definition…”

FYI, the law has its own nomenclature and its own dictionaries which often diverge from “common” definitions. And had you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you might notice that I did not use the word “lie.” Rather, I QUOTED someone else using that term. I also quite clearly stated that this was not actionable.

Now, did you have another point Miss Latella?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“FYI, the law has its own nomenclature and its own dictionaries which often diverge from “common” definitions.”

So? I assume you mean the common definition since the context seems to be within the common definition of the word.

“And had you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you might notice that I did not use the word “lie.” Rather, I QUOTED someone else using that term. I also quite clearly stated that this was not actionable.”

I was responding to Mar 8th, 2011 @ 9:49pm (kinda hard to keep track anymore) and I don’t see that post quoting anyone else using that term. Mar 8th, 2011 @ 9:49pm also said that it’s almost actionable but I never said that this person claimed that Mikes post is actionable. I was responding to the sentence “If you tell lies about people (or corporations) they are very likely to get upset about it, and ask you to correct it.”, which falsely accuses Mike of being a liar. If anything, falsely calling someone a liar is defamation and, while INAL, I’m not so sure the legal definition of lie is generally that different than the common definition. Not that it hasn’t been used differently, in different legal (and common) contexts, just that it probably generally means exactly what I defined it to mean, both legally and normally.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Then in this case you are just full of it bro.

For people to settle specially and industry known for their bloody ways, something serious need to have happened, they wouldn’t just pack and go away, they would want to set an example of Limewire and instead they lost their nerve and settled, why?

So where is the wrong in that everybody knows why they settled, they were afraid of something, speculating about what is no big deal then.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Ahem, you obviously have zero journalistic experience. I’m not making that up, either, and you know it.

Try getting an editor at any reputable publication to run your unchecked story with no verifiable sources, and under a sensationalistic headline, no less.

It’s a myth that journalists don’t reveal their sources. They almost always reveal them to their editor and/or publisher. They have to. It’s called fact checking, and all reputable publications do it.

When you see, “an anonymous source” or something similar, it refers to a specific source vetted by or familar to the editor. “Some people say,” OTOH, is, journalisitically speaking, entirely meaningless, especially as corroboration for your article.

Now, please stop making up stuff. You know, stuff like you know the first thing about the journalistic process. It doesn’t help your position any.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Ahem, you obviously have zero journalistic experience. I’m not making that up, either, and you know it.

That seems like an assertion based on a lack of knowledge. Did you fact check that claim before stating it here?

Oh wait, it’s okay for you to have an opinion… but when others do you attack them for it? Funny.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I clearly stated the factual basis for my statement, which, I suspect (notice the qualifier) you know to be correct.

It’s a fact that reputable publications fact check. It’s a fact that this invariably involves checking sources. It’s a fact that anyone with journalistic experience knows this. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is he has no journalistic experience.

Now, as this is a deduction, I left the premise open to correction or clarification. If he wishes to claim journalistic experience, he can do so. After all, he is the source.

I’d be willing to bet a bunch frog pelts he won’t, because he doesn’t have any journalistic experience, but that’s speculation, which has been my one and only point all along. It’s speculation with a solid basis, but it’s speculation nonetheless.

You headline would have been just fine with any kind of qualifier. The problem I have is stating speculation, no mater how well founded it may be, as fact. I have no problem with the article. You are clear as to what you know and what you don’t, but surmise. And you are, of course, perfectly entitled to any opinions you might express.

Now, you see, I didn’t have to argue to imaginary authority by claiming I know because a couple of guys told me so. I referenced independently verifiable facts, applied logic and arrived at a conclusion. If you think my facts wrong, you are free to rebut them. But I’m not sure I can see how you can rebut the deduction. Logic: It’s not just for breakfast anymore.

BTW, I appreciate your willingness to openly engage in debate. Good for you. My criticism isn’t personal.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

My credits are entirely irrelevant, as the facts I’ve presented are all easily independently verified. You can find them in any standard text on journalism.

Now, did you have a particular fact you wished to rebut in some way? Do. Or is ad hominem the very apogee of your rhetorical abilities?

And, BTW, not that it matters, other than I find it poersonall offesive, but no, I do not watch Fox or CNN, nor do I read the Daily Mail. If I read a Brit paper, and I do from time to time, it’s usually The Guardian. Used to read the Times. Before Murdoch.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

It’s a fact that reputable publications fact check.

Wait, what? I think you mean to say it’s your opinion that they fact check. And before you get confused, if you read the linked article, you’ll see that the AP is just starting to realize that people like fact checked articles without any of the usual he-said-she-said crap that often mars political reporting (emphasis mine)”.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

>> I referenced independently verifiable facts, applied logic and arrived at a conclusion.

I think part of the problem is over this phrase you stated earlier:

> If you can’t cite these “multiple people,” don’t cite them. Journalism 101…

I think the comment that followed that one (from the person you believe “obviously” is not a journalist) may not have interpreted your phrase above as you intended.

Can you clarify what you meant in saying, if you can’t cite someone then don’t cite someone?

Did you mean different things in each use of “cite”, or did you leave some thoughts out, or was it your intention simply to say that a dog is a dog?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“It’s a myth that journalists don’t reveal their sources. They almost always reveal them to their editor and/or publisher.”

Now you’re just deliberately obfuscating the issue. Since the context of the discussion involves Mike not revealing his sources to the public, then it should be obvious that I am referring to public source revelation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Sounds like a couple of ACs work for the publishers & know exactly what happened. They’re in fact ones spreading FUD with all the “you should put ‘in my opinion’ or somebody will sue one day'”. Pure FUD.

Mike may have an agenda but, and from reading TD for several years now, I’ve found his agenda to be: Why don’t corporations, etc, think about what they do before getting all defensive & suing the shit out of people, getting laws created or changed & stifling technological progression (be it bad or good for those with an interest in selling products).

For those that believe telling people to think is an agenda, perhaps you missed the point of 1984.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Your post is more FUD. The likelihood that any AC works for one of the publishers is zero.

FUD is all this blog deals in, day in and day out. That’s why no one takes it seriously.

I noticed its frequency in showing up high in Google searches dropped dramatically after Google’s recent algorithm tweak. Whoops.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“The likelihood that any AC works for one of the publishers is zero.”

That’s not true, Mike has pointed out several times in the past that many of the posters IP addresses have come from interested corporations. Sure, the corporations are probably better at concealing that now, but it doesn’t change the fact.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Funny, Masnick stated he didn’t look at IP addresses.

I believe you’re confused here. I will, occasionally, look at IP addresses if someone does something to make me wonder. But I don’t look at them as a matter of course. I think your confusion comes from times when I’ve pointed out that it was obvious who someone was even when I had not looked at their IP address. But that does not mean I have never looked at IP addresses. That would be silly.

Which everyone knows is a hilarious lie… kinda like the title of the above article.

The only lie was your claim that I said I do not.

So let’s see, will you retract your lie? Of course not…

A person that lies and misrepresents more often than not is impossible to take seriously.

Again, I have done neither here. You on the other hand…

But, the good thing is that I know who takes me seriously. So, since lots of people do take me seriously, it seems to suggest you may be the one misjudging here.

Want to try again?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

You look at IP addresses all the time and you know it. You and your ego can’t help but to do so.

For someone accusing me of making totally unfounded statements based on a total lack of knowledge, I just have to laugh, since the above statement is exactly that. Not only is it a totally unfounded statement based on a total lack of knowledge, it’s also wrong.

Our system makes it pretty difficult for me to see IP addresses. I can look them up, but it’s not particularly easy, and I don’t do it very often. Just when I’m curious to see if a hunch about where someone is coming from is correct.

So, I’m curious, why is it okay for you to make blatantly false statements about me, but when I make an informed statement based on evidence, it’s somehow horrible? I would appreciate an honest answer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Mike, we only have to look at the recent post about the “useless” changes to the patent law, where you out one of the posters are someone who works for the patent office. Unless they volunteered that information, you obtained it by checking their posting information (including IP).

Can you explain how that holds up against the Techdirt privacy policy? Oh, where is that page again?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

From what I read, he doesn’t reveal nearly enough to identify the individuals, he just reveals that their IP addresses have originated from an interested corporation is all and he reveals the nature of the corporation and what it does. I don’t even think I’ve ever seen him reveal what corporation it is, just that it’s a lawfirm that’s involved in suing people for infringement or maybe that it’s a patent trolling firm, etc… and he has only done it when someone posts under an inconsistent anonymous moniker like anonymous coward.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

No, he reveals enough to try to discredit the poster, or to make them look like a shill. It is more of the FUD, really, because he can claim almost any poster “logs in from X” even if they don’t. You have to take his word on it. Considering how willing he is to stretch the truth and make stuff up, I wouldn’t put it past him to also “imply” that a user is from some group just to get them shouted down.

Sorry, but Mike is suffering a real credibility problem these days. It seems that almost every day he does something that takes away a little more credibility too.

The eejit (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Technically, there’s no such thing as privacy, only the request that personal stuff stays personal. The IP address is public information; what’s private is the link between IP address and time/date information. You leave a surprising amount of information lying around on the internet, even if you don’t want to.

A smart person can add the dots together.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Mike, we only have to look at the recent post about the “useless” changes to the patent law, where you out one of the posters are someone who works for the patent office. Unless they volunteered that information, you obtained it by checking their posting information (including IP).

I did not check the IP. 6 has said that in the past. It was no secret. Thanks for playing.

Ben (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“The likelihood that any AC works for one of the publishers is zero”

That’s your opinion.

It’s well known that companies hire shills to go around message boards trying to boost company image, quell dissent etc. Most do it better than you though, with your predictable usage of FUD. I bet the debating society had fun against you

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It’s well known that companies hire shills to go around message boards trying to boost company image, quell dissent etc.

No it isn’t.

But it’s something freetards love to con themselves into thinking is true.

As a music person, and not a nerd/leech/worthless-to-society parasite, I came here because Masnick’s bullshit was showing up too high in Google searches and had to be called out.

And thanks to Google, it’s not nearly the problem it once was 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, I used to not believe that to be true, I used to think of the possibility but never really believed that it could be so cynical. After Mike pointed out several times that many of those posting have the IP addresses of interested corporations, I found out that things were far more cynical than I had imagined. I’m sure they are now much better at concealing their activities. These corporations are corrupt to the core and those posting on behalf of the corporations will then turn around and give lies like

“The likelihood that any AC works for one of the publishers is zero.”

They know better, this person might even be a corporate shill himself, but being that these people obviously have absolutely no regard for morality or truth whatsoever, they will happily lie without a second thought and call everyone a crazy conspiracy theorist for not believing their lies. Their opinion is so far off base with reality yet they continue to insist that anyone that disagrees with them is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Just a bit of a fun idea here:

I worked for a risk management company for a work term the other year. I was helping to maintain the website. One of the things the guys in the office were working on was a ‘persona organizer’, a term which maybe a month prior I might’ve had to define for you guys, but . . .

We didn’t put in anything about hiding IP’s. And I’m almost certain that if the company was using that persona manager for shilling, (Very likely, given the number of astroturf sites the website we maintained linked to), they wouldn’t have thought to hide IP’s.
“Ah, that’s computer stuff. The computer guys probably took care of it”

After all, why waste your skilled labourers doing a job that a retard can, and often does, do? And why inform the company if you’re doing something blatantly unethical?

As it is, I can’t think of an ethical use for a persona organizer that was required to handle and auto-create ‘at least 100 accounts per website’.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is well known that’s it’s economically unfeasible for companies to hire people to surf the web all day just to post comments in discussion threads.

I’m sure people who work for big companies do post here from time to time. That’s not shilling. Nor have I ever seen anything to make me think they are prohibited from posting here. I’ve worked in and around the biz for decades, though always on the independent side. I’m not shilling.

Have you ever considered the possiblity that intelligent people with intimate knowledge of the many complex issues involved just might disagree with you? Quel horor! Yep, its’s true.

BTW, you’ve been nominated for an Irony Cross. Accusing someone of an inability to debate with nothing but pure, unadulturated ad hominem? Impressive.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It is well known that’s it’s economically unfeasible for companies to hire people to surf the web all day just to post comments in discussion threads.

I’m sure people who work for big companies do post here from time to time. That’s not shilling. Nor have I ever seen anything to make me think they are prohibited from posting here. I’ve worked in and around the biz for decades, though always on the independent side. I’m not shilling.

For what it’s worth, I agree with the above. I seriously doubt that anyone’s been hired to post such viewpoints here. While I know plenty of folks from within the industries we discuss here comment, I assume they do it of their own free will, not because of some job requirement. While I’m amused at the amount of time some of them seem to spend here, rather than doing their real jobs, I doubt that commenting here is part of their real job.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The point is that this statement

“Sounds like a couple of ACs work for the publishers & know exactly what happened.”

Could be true and this statement

“The likelihood that any AC works for one of the publishers is zero”

Is likely false. How does he know the likelihood is zero? Does he personally know all of the posters with which he agrees with? Or is it just a wild guess.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“I’m sure people who work for big companies do post here from time to time. That’s not shilling.”

When people with direct conflicts of interest often post here, that’s shilling.

Sure, to some extent the general public and members of the general public have an interest in the matter, but if their position is good for them as members of the public, then their positions is likely good for most members of the public.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

(more specifically, when people with direct conflicts of interest post here anonymously, that’s shilling. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with posting here anonymously or even when people with direct conflicts of interest post here anonymously. I don’t even think shilling is necessarily inherently wrong, shills have the right to free speech too. But it does raise suspicion of their motives and the truthfulness of what they say).

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I noticed its frequency in showing up high in Google searches dropped dramatically after Google’s

Hmm. I hadn’t even thought of checking this since we’re not even close to a “content farm,” but this comment made me go look. According to our analytics, the two weeks prior to Google’s algo shift, we received 22% of our traffic from searches. After the change, we received 27% of traffic from Google searches. And our traffic is up the past two weeks.

So. Um. Yeah. Data. Says you’re wrong.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Good that you checked. I noticed recently this site coming up on some searches I didn’t expect, so at least my hunch would agree with your data.

I think Google gives lots of preference to recent material, and I think that is why this site ranks high frequently.. because it has so many fresh postings on current events of various nature.

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re:

“Sounds like a couple of ACs work for the publishers & know exactly what happened.”

Sounds more like someone needs some new tinfoil for their hat. Man, talk about piling on the logical fallacies…

Suffice it to say that you are entirely wrong, which is very possibly why you can’t begin to make any kind of logical argument to support your wild-ass knee-jerk “deduction.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Gee I read the article cited, and it does appear they withdrew to avoid having to prove ownership. It is possible they were just trying to puff up the claims of kajillions of dollars lost, and when being pushed to prove it they folded.

Sort of how in the other case the labels were displeased with having to prove the magic numbers they claim as losses with real factual information.

Lyle D (profile) says:

The same story’s covered over at torrentfreak;

http://torrentfreak.com/limewire-settles-with-record-labels-still-faces-1-billion-claim-110308/

The most interesting part is this extract…

“The case dragged on and in recent weeks dozens of documents were submitted to the court in a noteworthy side-battle. To get to the bottom of how the music industry sets up licensing deals with other Internet companies, LimeWire subpoenaed internal emails from Apple, Amazon, Yahoo, Google, MySpace and others.
Thus far a quarter million pages of emails have been collected, leading LimeWire to draw some interesting conclusions. Among other things, they found that unauthorized downloads actually boosted the revenue of music labels, and that their income took a dive when LimeWire shut down.”

While it doesn’t prove Mike’s opinion on why it was settled.. It does make it look more like it was the publishers themselves that backed out for fear of ruining their own case…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“looks like” and “did” are two different things.

I would not doubt that Limewire (like Mike) can come up with enough data to support their point of view. Given enough chance, you can turn a monkey into a President (some say that was done with Shrub Bush). If you select your data carefully, use the right blurry video, you can make it look like a missle hit the pentagon on 9/11 and the extra plane just disappeared somewhere else nobody knows where.

I wouldn’t take Torrent Freak as a reputable news source. However, it does suggest to me that their “source” and Mike’s “source” are the same, the owner of Limewire, spinning it to the very end.

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

WOW

As I read the title to the article, I have to admit that I thought it was a factual statement. Then I read further and found it was an educated guess. I guess it’s difficult to group reading AND comprehension for some people.

WOW Mike… It seems that you really touched a nerve with this one. What I find interesting is why so many people feel so strongly about this. Ok so, Limewire is down. Limewire Pirate Edition is up and running and so is Frostwire and many other P2P networks. So why do people care so much about your opinion of why the music publisher’s suit was settled?

This reminds me of the demise of Napster. The recording industry proudly beat their drums and declared the beast dead.

I love this comment….

“FUD is all this blog deals in, day in and day out. That’s why no one takes it seriously.”

And Limewire is gone and all those people that don’t take this blog seriously have awakened and realize that file sharing is bad. Thank you RIAA/MPAA for saving us from ourselves. I need to run out an buy some music now that that file sharing is over.

Pete Principle says:

That has to be the single stupidest argument I’ve ever seen. Your justification is it’s ok becasue artists are rich? Are you insane? Or just stupid?

The vast majority of artists are not in higher income brackets. And even the very few who are generally employ thousands of other people who are not. Not to mention, who decides? Where do you draw the line? How rich must one be before you think it’s ok to steal from them?

I talked to one these “rich” artists today. She’s been busting her ass for many years, now, putting out CD’s regulalry, all on small independent labels. Lots of critical acclaim, but she barely gets by.

A week or so ago she put out a best of collection. A day later it was available for download. Now, it’s boob bait on data mining/marketing websites. “Click here to download free!”

It’s virtually impossible to make money touring, though she plays 200+ dates/yr, so she relies on CD sales. If she sells 5 or 10,000 copies, she can pay her bills. Last week she got an $18,000 medical bill for her son she can’t pay and you think it’s ok to steal from her becasue she’s rich?

My gut reaction is to tell you’re scum. But you’re probably not. You just haven’t thought it through. Real people are really being hurt. My gut reaction is due to the fact that I know some of these real people. Don’t take it personally. But do educate yourself.

Planespotter (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Maybe time to tell your artist friend to get another job?

Just because her “best off” compliation made it to a
torrent doesn’t mean that anyone downloaded it or in any significant numbers, you haven’t provided the name of the artist, the name of the album and where you saw it available for download, I’d need them to check your story out. Also anyone that did download it you cannot prove that they listened to it then deleted it or maybe went on to buy it, provide more info and maybe we could see if her sales increased.

Just because you like doing something doesn’t mean that your entitled to make money at it, if she cannot, for whatever reason and p2p may not be a major factor, make a living at making music then sorry tough, move on, either innovate and try and get people to buy your product, that’s what CwF+RtB is all about, or do something else.

Regarding her ?18,000 medical bill… you live in the US, lifes a bitch, you want universal healthcare vote for someone that wants it too, she can’t pay the bill because she isn’t making any money doing what she likes to do, and right now your case that this is all down to p2p filesharing has not been made.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“A week or so ago she put out a best of collection.”

Great, but that’s not new content, is it? How is she marketing that toward new fans, since most existing fans will already own the trakcs in question? Is there added value that would encourage existing fans to buy? Has she engaged the fans to see if these are the songs they consider the “best”, rather than just going by sales figures?

Is she actually taking steps to gather new fans and sell to them, or is she just assuming that tours and CDs are the only ways for her to make a living? What steps is she taking to protect herself in the new market realities of the 21st century?

“A day later it was available for download.”

So what? if she’s operating in the modern music industry without realising that was inevitable, she’s a moron. But, this means nothing. Its availability for download has nothing to do with whether or not a single sale was lost.

It’s tempting to assume that every download is a lost sale, but this is never a valid assumption. Maybe some sales were lost, maybe she gained more paying fans for her gigs, who would not have bought the album if the download was not available. Nobody knows, and you shouldn’t pretend you do.

“It’s virtually impossible to make money touring, though she plays 200+ dates/yr”

She has to work 200 days per year! Oh no, that’s over half the year! She’s like every other self-employed person on the damn planet! Don’t people realise musicians are special and shouldn’t need to work for their living after they’ve produced a CD?

Apologies for the sarcasm, but if “she has to work instead of just collecting royalties” is the worst you can come up with, my sympathies are low.

“Last week she got an $18,000 medical bill for her son she can’t pay”

I’m sorry that your country’s healthcare system is so screwed up that this is even possible. But, why can’t she afford it? Did she not have insurance, or did the insurance deny her? Did she piss away all the income she’s already received on drugs and booze, or did she just not bother to save in case of future disasters or loss of income, pretending that CD sales would continue forever?

I’m not saying she did that, by the way, but since you don’t identify her, it’s a possibility and some people do that – that is, fail to protect themselves against the future and then complain about their hard lives when luck goes against them.

“you think it’s ok to steal from her becasue she’s rich?”

I certainly don’t, even if she was rich. But, it’s unclear who you’re responding to here. Perhaps you can address that person by replying to their post.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Maybe it's just me...

But for all the claims that Mike’s opinion is blatantly false, I’m not seeing anyone dragging anything into the argument that would state otherwise. Just more opinion. If you’ve found something that disproves Mike’s claim, please provide something in the form of a clickable link or a verifiable quote.

Secondly, even IF Mike is completely wrong here, I still like his error rate over that of various mainstream media outlets who’ve never met a press release they didn’t like enough to post as “news.” If he’s got some spin on the story, so does every other outlet, whether it’s Fox or NPR or CNN.

Plus, even if he is completely wrong, what harm has he done? It’s not like this is an instance of blindly following the crowd and talking thousands, if not millions, of parents out of vaccinating their kids because of a tenuous (and ultimately false) link to autism. Or branding an entire group of people as rapists, or possible rapists, or at the very least rape enablers and sympathizers.

If he smears the major labels and their publishers a bit, they’ll walk it off and circle the lawyers. It’s not as if anyone’s health or wellbeing or personal reputation (other than Mike’s, possibly) is at stake.

You may not like his take, but you have nothing on hand to refute it. And you already know you don’t like his take, but yet you show up in every thread to remind us of that fact. Good for you. Everyone appreciates badly applied tenacity.

Daph says:

Re: It's not just you.

All this diversionary attack-flailing appears to indicate a sort of DEFCON 5! reaction to Mike’s opinion that may very well be proven true.

To restate your point: so what if it is?

Is there some sort of prize system involved in the outcome of this here at TechDirt? Were spiral cut smoked hams promised somewhere? Lifetime supplies of of the San Francisco treat? Coupons for one free drink at a chain restaurant? (sorry, I’m hungry and can only think of food-related rewards that were never offered at the moment)

With empty hand and misplaced ire, methinks they doth trolleth too much.

*lights out for lunch*

Pete Principle says:

Re: Re: Re:

Um, speaking of bullshit, where, exactly, is it you imagine you saw me saying Mike is wrong? Here’s a hint: you’ll have a hard time quoting it.

I’ve said it over and over again, Mike is entitled to his opinion. I may agree or disagree, but that has not been the basis of any of my criticisims of Mike’s article.

The only problem I have with the article is the headline as assertion of fact. I don’t know if his supposition is correct. I do know it’s a supposition.

Anonymous Coward says:

This thread, in a nutshell:

AC: Mike, you’re a big fat liar!
Mike: Not really. It’s my opinion based on all the facts I gathered.
(Same?) AC: Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Mike: Not really. Read the post. Gather your own facts. It makes sense.
(Yet again, the same) AC: ILL SUE THE S*** OUT OF YOU
Mike: Uh…good luck with that.
(This is getting boring because it’s the same) AC: You are an immoral child abusing terrorist pirate!
Mike: WTF man!?
(Oh look, what a surprise! It’s the same) AC: Liar!!1111oneoneelevenonehundred!!1
Mike: Sigh…it’s gotta be tuesday.

r (profile) says:

Afraid

Fact: Music Publishers Settle With Limewire;
Followup: Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Article Content: Observation and Opinion
Keywords: music, settle, copyrights

Odd that anyone with a reasonable disposition and basic understanding and familiarity of/with Internet outlets can get upset over this headline. The entire string of … debate is ass. If anybody derives “Fact” from the word “Afraid” in the title and is not satiated by reading the article was, quite simply, looking to bash heads. Knuckle dragging bully with a general inability to segment news and blogs and limewire into their respective categories.

And all this bashing of the people providing the content is ass too. Drag your bloody knuckles to the comments sections at CNN or DailyKos or some other equally low lying level of audience participation.

Pages and pages of ass comment on someone’s opinion that a page title is all facts. Yeah, that’s nice. Mission Accomplished

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Afraid

“Can you show me on the Techdirt site where there is an explaination that this site is “opinion” and not fact?”

I’m wondering if you people put this much effort arguing with actual journalists who print actual lies, or if you’re just obtuse for the hell of it.

Anyway, from Techdirt’s about page:

“…a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog…”

From dictionary.com:

“?noun
1.
a web site containing the writer’s or group of writers’ own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., …”

So, Techdirt classes itself as a blog. A blog is generally categorised as a source of opinion, not hard fact. Either you’re arguing semantics pointlessly, or you can’t tell the difference between an opinion blog and a source of objective journalism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Afraid

First off, it would be better if that was stated rather much more clearly on the main page (say a tagline under the logo). Instead, the site presents itself as factual, makes no indication of being opinion based up front. It’s just sort of misleading, no? How many people do you think check the about page before reading the content?

An opinion blog still doesn’t give license to put up dishonest or unsupported material in the guise of being fact. “Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question” – this is a statement of fact not supported by anything in the story. It is Mike’s opinion, but stated as fact.

Heck, a few months from now, he will like here with the old “we have already shown that the music industry is afraid to fight in court” when that fact has not be shown.

Sorry Paul, you are on the losing side of this one. Mike blew it, he knows he blew it (it’s why he is here trying so hard to defend himself), and he won’t admit it. It’s really too bad, his crediblity suffers greatly when he does this sort of thing.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Afraid

“First off, it would be better if that was stated rather much more clearly on the main page”

I think that most people realise this is an opinion site. I also can’t think of many blogs off the top of my head that make this distinction. Can you name others that feel the need, or are you just pushing this pointless argument for Mike’s benefit?

” It is Mike’s opinion, but stated as fact.”

Yet explained nicely on the body of the text. Professional journalists do this all the time, why complain about an opinion site when there’s so many bigger offenders out there?

I do agree that maybe a less conclusive headline may have been more appropriate, but it hardly deserves the reaction it’s getting from you given the nature of the site.

Really, this is an astoundingly minor issue, and I wouldn’t even have commented if it weren’t for boredom at work. What’s your excuse?

“Mike blew it, he knows he blew it”

Now look at who’s making assumptions and stating them as fact.

DH's Love Child (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Afraid

Seriously? the name of this site is TechDIRT, not, TechNEWS. To me, that would imply that it is providing dirt (otherwise known as gossip) and not NEWS (otherwise known as lies).

Do you just blindly go onto every site and assume that they are reporting sites and not blogging sites or do you do a modicum of research first?

r (profile) says:

Re: Re: Afraid

I can’t quite make out why you’re needing a show me from me about something neither stated nor implied, however, given the very brief amount of time I’m willing to give to satisfy your inquiry I’ve found this — here -> http://www.techdirt.com/about.php

Like a lot of analysis that would seem to imply content that includes both facts, opinions and an occasional fantasy induced impetuous comment (i.e. Intelligence Analysis)
r

drew (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Not at all, but deliberately provocative posts that infer meaning where none was stated and add no value to the discussion are.
Look back up the thread and see how many of the posts are just ad hominem attacks, ad ludicrum arguments or completely off topic.
As I said, filtering is the wrong answer but it would make it easier to get to the real arguments on (and from) either side.
Now would you care to revise your extrapolation?

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re:

>> I talked to one these “rich” artists today. […sad story followed…]

As I read your comment, I thought to myself, this smells to me like another example of a sad story claimed “as assertion of fact that makes my teeth itch.”

Then I thought, “what kind of idiot would read a [sad story] and assume maybe it was well researched and independetly verified with multiple sources?

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re:

>> Try getting an editor at any reputable publication to run your unchecked story with no verifiable sources, and under a sensationalistic headline, no less.

Do you have evidence that Mike, the author, did not reveal his sources to Mike, the publisher?

You then added,

>> When you see, “an anonymous source” or something similar, it refers to a specific source vetted by or familar to the editor.

Do you have evidence that Mike, the editor, has not vetted and is not familiar with the alleged sources claimed by Mike, the author?

Until you provide such evidence, I think the AC above made a legitimate point in saying,

> Journalists have long been known to conceal their sources.

as a reply to you alleging that Mike the publisher, editor, or author has to cite his sources in the above piece.

And from this, I do not see how you can logically conclude about the AC:

> Ahem, you obviously have zero journalistic experience.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re:

Let me spell it out for you.

The Labels sued limewire for a billion dollars. The labels won and did so very quickly. Limewire appealed. The labels are still going through with it even though Limewire is asking them to air their dirty laundry.

The publishers sued limewire for a billion dollars. Limewire asked them to prove they actually owned the copyrights. Suddenly there is a settlement that isn’t being touted very heavily by the publishers (not even mentioned on their own site), and the publishers are willing to pay their own legal fees.

In case that wasn’t spelled out for you enough, try the following: When you sue someone for a billion dollars, but settle, lay low, and pay your own legal fees, you just got your rear end handed to you.

So I’ll go ahead and state this as bona fide fact that you can run to the bank with: The NMPA lost big time.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

DailyDirt: Baby Language Development
Facebook Comment Leads To Arrest In Zimbabwe
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...