If You Kill Someone And Want To Get Away With It, Bragging About It On Facebook Isn't A Good Idea
from the just-a-tip dept
A tip for you would be murderers out there: if you kill someone, it's probably not going to help you stay out of jail if you then brag about it on Facebook. In this case, a teenager in France posted about the murder he had committed, and then told his sister that he did so to brag about it (not out of any kind of remorse). His sister then turned him in.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bragging, murder, social networks
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
not a single mention of all the tours canceling shows for poor ticket sales nor how that effects the "sell the scarcity" model. thats okay. its friday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
why would that effect the "sell the scarcity" model? If apples aren't selling well this week, does this affect the "selling food" model? Maybe they need to do a better job of selling their scarcities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Instead of just complaining, lead the way. What's the URL of your blog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I might warn you though, strawmen have been largely replaced by more modern technologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps these artists (and in the case of limp bizkit, I use that term loosely) would be better playing smaller shows or perhaps working on their stage show to provide the kind of experience that would make people want to drop $50/person to go there. Right now, the market is telling the artists that what they're putting out there is not worth paying the price they want to get for it. That is purpose of these new business models that Mike keeps talking about - using a little brain power and adapting to what people will want to pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you took all the brains from that entire list, you wouldn't have enough for a decent sized omelet.
oh... and their music sucks too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"OMGZ Christina Aguilera didn't sell out, the concert model must be broken!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, we've already responded to this claim in the comments three times.
And you haven't responded. Once again, based on your tortured logic, the decline in CD sales also means that the selling music model is done and buried.
But that conflicts with what you said. No wonder you don't respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
considering how lame the current story is and yet how relevant the downturn in the music industry is, i would think you would dedicate more than a passing comment to it.
so, where exactly did you address this?
also, did anyone say that the model is done and buried? it only shows that "selling the scarce" has some fundamental weaknesses. you are the one declaring the shiny disk market as a dinosaur, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry TAM, I know your scope of the world is very narrow, but try to broaden your horizons a little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no story with concerts. A few poorly planned concerts get cancelled due to (a) bad economy and (b) poor planning. That says nothing about basic economics. No one said all concerts forever will be successful.
Doing a post on the fact that some have cancelled dates is not a story. There's nothing worth commenting on, except your silly obsession which shows a basic misinterpretation of basic economics.
so, where exactly did you address this?
In three previous comment threads soon after you posted about it.
also, did anyone say that the model is done and buried? it only shows that "selling the scarce" has some fundamental weaknesses. you are the one declaring the shiny disk market as a dinosaur, no?
Uh, you did. I can't find the direct comment, but you claimed that this disproved the "sell the scarce" model multiple times. But, by that logic, the fact that CD sales are on the decline it means that the "sell the music" model is disproved.
Do you not see the logic fail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
cd sales are on the decline because of unfair competition from pirates. you know it, i know it. thats life.
concerts have no competition except themselves. i sent you a number of links, including industry types who are very concerned about the number of canceled, shows, dates, tours, and the like, mostly because of very soft ticket sales. that many of these shows are priced pretty darn high (two tickets in the $150-$300 range) might have something to do with it. see, if the concert tickets were under $100 a pair, perhaps they would go better. but because artists and management are forced to recoup losses from recorded music sales through concert ticket sales, the prices are signficantly higher than they have ever been.
the soft economy doesnt help, but it really doesnt help that concert ticket prices have jumped so high in the last few years, pretty much matching the decline of cd sales (your own posts support this). so the question remains: "does the selling of the scarce work only when the public is flush with money?". this is a doubly important question when you look at "transient experience" things like concerts and mini-putt games. there is no actual retained value on these things, nothing that can be resold or given to anyone else, just an experience. is this not the first thing to stop selling when people are less than brimming with cash?
now can you see why this deserves its own post, and not comments in some other area? i think you are trying to avoid what may be a pitfall of your preferred business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that's not what the evidence actually says, but ok, even if we grant that: concerts are having a tough year because of the economy and poor planning. You know it. I know it. That's life.
It says nothing about basic economics.
concerts have no competition except themselves.
That's simply not true. Concerts compete with other entertainment options for consumers leisure dollars.
i sent you a number of links, including industry types who are very concerned about the number of canceled, shows, dates, tours, and the like, mostly because of very soft ticket sales. that many of these shows are priced pretty darn high (two tickets in the $150-$300 range) might have something to do with it.
Yes, so some concert promoters priced stuff wrong. Similarly, record labels priced CDs wrong. So what?
see, if the concert tickets were under $100 a pair, perhaps they would go better. but because artists and management are forced to recoup losses from recorded music sales through concert ticket sales, the prices are signficantly higher than they have ever been.
They're not "forced to recoup losses through ticket sales." They're using different models. If they price it wrong, then they'll fail.
the soft economy doesnt help, but it really doesnt help that concert ticket prices have jumped so high in the last few years, pretty much matching the decline of cd sales (your own posts support this). so the question remains: "does the selling of the scarce work only when the public is flush with money?"
The evidence still shows that the overall spend on music and music related items is way up. So, the empirical evidence suggests you're wrong. The mistake (one of many) that you're making is that "concerts" are the only other business model. They're not.
this is a doubly important question when you look at "transient experience" things like concerts and mini-putt games. there is no actual retained value on these things, nothing that can be resold or given to anyone else, just an experience. is this not the first thing to stop selling when people are less than brimming with cash?
This makes no sense and is blatantly false economically speaking.
now can you see why this deserves its own post, and not comments in some other area? i think you are trying to avoid what may be a pitfall of your preferred business models.
Your cluelessness on basic economics notwithstanding, the fact that some concert organizers made bad business decisions deserves no separate post. There is no "pitfall" to the business model at all. As with any business model decision, if you do it wrong, and set the prices wrong, you will fail.
Again, you still haven't explained why a few poorly planned concerts defies all of basic economics. And you still haven't explained why a slight decline in certain types of concerts means the end of "sell the scarce" as a business model, while a massive decline in selling CDs is not the end of "sell the music" as a business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It says nothing about basic economics." - there is the rub. you arent considering the possiblity that this reflects poorly on the basic business model, that the public only buys overpriced scarcities (especially the transient ones) in a good economy.
you dont seem to see the difference between $10 for a cd and $100 for a concert ticket (i know which one i will enjoy again and again, and which one is a transient thing that will be gone 1 second after the house lights come back on).
"
Your cluelessness on basic economics notwithstanding, the fact that some concert organizers made bad business decisions deserves no separate post. There is no "pitfall" to the business model at all. As with any business model decision, if you do it wrong, and set the prices wrong, you will fail." - there you go again off on the 'you dont understand economics', which is pretty much the cover for 'dont poke at my business models'.
do you not agree that concert ticket prices are higher today than they were 5 years ago?
do you not agree that concert ticket prices are out of line, especially considering the economy?
do you not agree that, if this is the price that must be set for a concert for the whole to make money, and that price is out of line with the economy, that this shows the business model facing a problem?
we arent talking a couple of cancelled dates or poor decisions. heck, the lilith decision was made by your buddy at nettwerk, whom, you consider to be a shrewd businessman. perhaps he, like yourself, fails to see the very basic business model issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
heck, even the american idol tour, which is usually a slam dunk sellout, canceled shows for poor ticket sales. see, this is where it is even worse, it isnt just full tours, but parts of tours, dates, sections, etc. acts are hitting the road, realizing there is no money in it at the current level, and rather than shrink down to smaller venues, they part it altogether.
as for cds, if you like a band a whole bunch but only like 2 songs on their cd, then you are going to be incredibly bored at their concerts. to me, that would suggest that you will pirate the 2 songs you like and will never give the band a dime any other way. that makes you part of the large number of people who take and never give back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Concert Cancellations
This is not new. Bands of varying levels of popularity have been cancelling shows or entire tours forever. Sometimes they readjust according to demand and play smaller venues at a lower price. Sometimes they skip a tour and work on recording better music for a future tour.
The reason it is noted now is that several high profile tours all cancelled at the same time.
The major concert industry is in bad need of revamping. The prices are too high because many "superstar" artists demand high guarantees. On top of that, there are middlemen who add on high fees and the venue wants its large cut. The problem is that everyone is pricing this stuff for how much they want to make -- not what the show is actually worth or what the market will bear. Also, many shows are touted as sold out when in reality many seats remain empty on the night of the show. Holdbacks and unsold scalper tix leave a lot of empty spots.
If they would price their tickets more affordably and stop holding so many good seats back from the main sale (often to "scalp" them for higher prices or to give them away to VIPs) they would get more bodies in seats and make more money in volume. Unfortunately, most of the folks running the concert industry are too greedy and ignorant to make smart choices.
None of this has any bearing on 90% of the musicians and artists in the world who are not superstars and who play smaller venues at more reasonable prices. For those folks, this business model is still alive and well...and adapting to the times as it should.
One more thing: Signed artists have always made their money from touring, as the record label leeches suck up any money made from music sales. So to say that ticket prices are high to "recoup losses from piracy" is disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, you're a troll, anyway, but you're also stupid since you refuse to prove your claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bugs & such...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez, what a bitch....
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sincerely yours,
Nitpicker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sincerely yours,
Your Helmeted Overlord.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Kill Someone and Brag About It On Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Kill Someone and Brag About It On Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHHHH!!! Don't help these people out with your tips. Keep quiet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for her!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]