New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation

from the love-the-possibilities,-upset-at-the-roadblocks dept

Thu, Dec 30th 2010 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

A couple months back, I had a really fascinating experience. I had two meetings in a row, each with incredibly successful content creators -- people who have embraced new business models and new technologies to amazing results, both creatively and monetarily. We were discussing the state of the entertainment industry today, as well as additional strategies for navigating what's coming next. What I found amusing, however, was how at some point, in the middle of each of those meetings, the person I was talking to sat back, laughed, and said "you're such an optimist about these things!" I was amused, since both of these individuals had already shown an ability to thrive in these new, often unchartered waters, but they still weren't completely convinced of their own success.

But the part that really struck me, was that immediately following these two meetings, I went to check on Techdirt, and was reading a series of comments about how reading Techdirt each day was making people more and more pessimistic -- what with new, more draconian copyright laws, domain name seizures, free speech violations and the like happening. And the juxtaposition of the two things struck me as odd. Yet, it seems to happen quite frequently. Just a week after those meetings, I was at the Monaco Media Forum, and I thought how nice it was that the opening of the event was entirely focused on optimism and all of the new opportunities that innovation has opened up for the media landscape. Having attended so many entertainment industry/media/policy/etc. events where most of the focus is on "the problems" or "the threats," I found that really refreshing. I mentioned on Twitter how cool it was that the conference was opening on such an optimistic note, rather than the pessimistic openings of other events. And the very first response I got back was: "look who's talking!"

And so, it seems, there's this odd dichotomy, where many people reading the site seem to feel that I'm angry or pessimistic in general, when the truth is quite the opposite (though, apparently, that only becomes clear to some people when they talk to me in person). For my last post of the year for the past two years, I've taken up similar subjects. In 2008, I wrote, On Staying Happy..., about how it was a myth that I was somehow filled with rage and angry about the world. There's so much wonderful going on, and it was excitement about all of that which keeps me happy. Last year, I expanded on that subject, in writing about Creativity, Innovation and Happiness, noting all the amazing achievements and progress made in 2009.

Once again, this year, I feel quite the same way. But I've been thinking a lot about the juxtaposition between those who think I'm extremely optimistic, and those who insist I'm extremely pessimistic -- and I think the best explanation I have goes back to a post I did in April, in which I explained how much I love seeing progress, and if I'm upset about anything, it's only about the roadblocks that get in the way of progress. I talked about the famous Louis CK video "Everything's Amazing & Nobody's Happy" where he discusses all of these amazing technological advances -- mobile phones, internet on airplanes, flying in airplanes itself -- and how people bitch and complain about it when those things don't work. Similarly, in that post, I compared two articles -- one complaining about the state of mobile phones today, and the other pointing out just how amazing it is that we have mobile phones today which are basically amazingly powerful computers in your pocket.

The point I was trying to make was that I definitely see both sides of that argument. I'm amazed every single day by some of the amazing things out there. And yet, at the same time, I'm frustrated by anything that gets in the way of making it even better. So, I'm super optimistic about innovation, and all of the possibilities out there. And I believe, quite strongly, that you cannot stop innovation -- but you absolutely can hinder it. So any "anger" that people feel, which may give them a sense of frustration and pessimism is my frustration about the roadblocks and barriers and hurdles that people throw in the way of this innovation -- either due to a misunderstanding of innovation, or through laziness and an unwillingness to change to take advantage of those new opportunities.

So, don't take the stories on Techdirt of negative things that are happening as reasons to be sad or pessimistic. Just look at them as highlighting the temporary roadblocks to innovation that need to be cleared out of the way. The faster those roadblocks are cleared, the sooner we increase that pace of innovation and there will be even more to be happy, excited and optimistic about. There will always be new roadblocks, but innovation cannot and will not be stopped.

Yes, it's frustrating to see roadblocks, corruption, monopolies and other efforts designed to hinder such innovation. It's frustrating because we know they're not necessary, and serve only to slow our own opportunities to experience great innovations. But, remain optimistic that as those roadblocks are cleared away, there will continue to be so much more that's wonderful to be optimistic about. Once again, a huge thank you to everyone who makes up the Techdirt community. While there may have been frustrating stories along the way, look at how far we've come. It's been a great year for the community as well, as it's grown significantly in the last twelve months, with many wonderful and thoughtful new participants that have made the experience of managing this site that much more exciting and fun. In the past year, I also believe we've had many more insightful and enlightening discussions, which I look forward to continuing in the new year. We've also got some goodies that we've been working on which will be coming during the year, so stay tuned...

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: innovation, optimism, pessimism

238 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DMNTD, 30 Dec 2010 @ 8:26pm

rage quit.
I for one think the opposite. A lot of the time I think its amazing your not putting more anger into the items you post. I know I would. Cheers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Transbot9, 30 Dec 2010 @ 8:59pm

It's easy for passion to be mistaken for rage
Although it would be nice if there were more posts on things that people/companies are doing right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2010 @ 9:01pm

NEW YEARS RESOLUTION FOR MASNICK: T-SHIRTS LOOOOOOOTS OF T-SHIRTS
Hows about you get more T-Shirts? Two per year wear out pretty quickly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fairuse (profile), 30 Dec 2010 @ 9:08pm

This sums it up for me.
"Yes, it's frustrating to see roadblocks, corruption, monopolies and other efforts designed to hinder such innovation. It's frustrating because we know they're not necessary, and serve only to slow our own opportunities to experience great innovations. But, remain optimistic that as those roadblocks are cleared away, there will continue to be so much more that's wonderful to be optimistic about."
Keep it going.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2010 @ 9:08pm

as all the US states go broke
YES GO innovate new ways to print money to pay the debts. Monopoly money is looking like a better deal.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PW (profile), 30 Dec 2010 @ 9:44pm

Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
...IMHO you've been a realist, at least in the directness that you approach most topics. While I don't always agree, I'd say that you keep a rational perspective that is approachable and willing to admit when you don't understand or are wrong. In this world of loud or self-righteous positioning by people over any topic, it's nice that you try to take a more fact-based approach and get through the noise to the meat of most issues. Anyway, yours is one of the few blogs that I look forward to the next post so keep'em coming :)

Happy New Year to you and the Techdirt team!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 30 Dec 2010 @ 9:55pm

"Yes, it's frustrating to see roadblocks, corruption, monopolies and other efforts designed to hinder such innovation. It's frustrating because we know they're not necessary, and serve only to slow our own opportunities to experience great innovations."

Agreed, it's frustrating. But they are not road blocks and they don't slow things down. People say innovation goes in fits and spurts, it doesn't. It slowly moves along ever expanding on the last piece of knowledge gleaned a short while before. Eventually there is a phase change where the old is removed and the new replaces it.

Think of it as father time and baby new year. Where it is more cost effective to do it the new way.

In the next three years things will begin turning around. The people in the IP industry will believe they are making head way and great things are happening. In truth the opposite will be occuring.

In the next year the record labels will see the online sales of music in the US stall mid year and near years end reverse. The cable companies will see continued cord cutting. The merger deal of Comcast and NBCU will go through and cord cutting will begin accelerating near years end. Hulu will have more restrictions placed on it by its member stations. Google "MAY" buy the EMI catalog. This is a big if with the failure of the remaining big 3 being only 2-4 years out and the catalogs having no real value in 5-7 years. Continued pressure by the IP industry (pharma and media) will cause greater encryption on the internet, alternate methods of online payments, a split in DNS, and a move away from hosting and DNS usage in the US.

All in all it looks really good. And for the last time this year ...

I'm on a horse. And have a Happy New Year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed C., 30 Dec 2010 @ 10:15pm

Re: as all the US states go broke
Well, gee... if they'd stop spending it like it was Monopoly money, then they wouldn't be in this mess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 30 Dec 2010 @ 10:19pm

Re:
Forgot to mention ... When there are only two record labels remaining, or google buys the EMI catalog, or online sales break below ~60% of current, is when the cost of online record label music will begin being reduced towards zero. It will also herald the end of RIAA as a viable entity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shadojak (profile), 30 Dec 2010 @ 10:58pm

Re: Re:
Nice to see that Hephaestus is optimistic, lol. And there WERE a lot of really good articles/posts this year.

I think that Mike does a darn good job with what he posts, and the dicussions in the comments are sometimes even better than the article!

Except for when the trolls start flaming, sigh. Ah well, no such thing as perfection.....

Happy New Year, Mike and TD!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:03am

Re: Re: Re:
"Nice to see that Hephaestus is optimistic,"

I am very optimistic. The thing is I am optimistic towards the words ...

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

What I see coming based on history, the trends, past monopolies, memes, psychology, economics, the data, and the never ending usage of lawyers to fight a business battle, is the failure of the current monopoly rent content industry. The cost of all content going to zero for the consumer. The US pharma industry getting looked at on a global scale.

"Except for when the trolls start flaming, sigh. Ah well, no such thing as perfection....."

Two possible responses ...

I love trolls, they give me the warm and fuzzies and are fun to abuse. Espcially when insluting their mothers bridges. ;)

If you were calling me a troll well read my history. I am not. I just view the trends and post my opinions. Last year on this and several other blogs I wrote that online sales of music would flat line this year. That the Comcast NBCU merger was a good thing from the perspective of GE stock. That all the intel types are pissed off at the US politicians for following RIAA and the MPAA. On that note. What you will see this year is Every intel agency getting pissed off at DOJ and HomeSec for going after domain names. It will accelerate encryption usage, cause a loss of "central" (read US) control of the internet, and lead to anonymity for people.

Basically its been a great year. Think of this as the year that the first amendment, fourth amendment, and fourteenth amendment became a global cyber-phenomena. A phenomena that has a chance to change things for the better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:51am

Re: NEW YEARS RESOLUTION FOR MASNICK: T-SHIRTS LOOOOOOOTS OF T-SHIRTS
Zing!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alephcat, 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:54am

news to me
Until I read this post it had never even crossed my mind that you were pessimistic about todays trends, to me you come across as very optimistic about the future of most of the things you write about, always asking your readers to try to fix any problems with what is happening. Thanks for another great year of well thought out and inspiring posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tracker1 (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:04am

Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
Well this is the only country that thinks it can spent its way out of debt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Constantinos (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:40am

Pessimism or dissapointment?
Hi Mike, I usually do get frustrated and feel more pessimistic when reading Techdirt, but I don't get the feeling that you're pessimistic yourself. If anything, you just sound disappointed at most of the news, but there's always that glimmer of hope.

It may just be the hazards of reporting news of this nature. A barrage of bad news can have the effect of making you appear as a pessimist, though I feel there's always that glimmer of hope in your posts.. :)

Keep up the good work!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:54am

Re:
Unless I'm mistaken, Masnick's "Connect with fans, reason to buy" spin on the ages-old concept of promo, has been pitched on this website for several years now.

After all this time, who exactly is he blaming for it not creating even a ripple in the industry as a whole?

Recorded music sales have been more than halved since 2000, and the concert business is falling apart too:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1643299/20100709/rihanna.jhtml

I know sales at Guitar Center are up, but McDonalds is also selling more hamburgers than ever before.

If Masnick's theory on "reason to buy" had any new and special merit, wouldn't it at least be making some dent in the stats by now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:59am

Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
it's nice that you try to take a more fact-based approach and get through the noise to the meat of most issues

ahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/00462512375/isohunt-a ppeals-process-begins.shtml#c1622

AJ: "Good grief, Mike. You are a piece of work. You clearly have zero interest in espousing the truth about Fung. Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Felix Pleșoianu, 31 Dec 2010 @ 3:42am

A pessimist is simply a well-informed optimist
Funny, people consider me a pessimist too, simply because I refuse to ignore the empty half of the glass. I keep telling them, the glass is both half-full and half-empty at the same time. Both halves are important, no matter how much I like to focus on the full one. Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

Happy New Year, Mike. Keep up the good work. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 3:47am

Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
Where did this come from? You seem to be someone that takes note of every potentially "bad" thing that anyone said on this site to use it against them (or others) in the future.

That shows that you are basically only here to troll. Or that you are actually AJ and are still pissed.

In any event, quoting AJ destroys any credibility your argument might have had (I don't have anything against the guy, but, for someone who claims to be a lawyer-in-training, he's kinda thick and annoying).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:15am

Re: as all the US states go broke
Governments can't go broke.

They can print money and inflate debt away, they can do what Brazil did and that was a trigger that set of actions to eliminate the debt from the books instantly and magically from the outside every time the debt reached a certain level.

They can however loose trust, which is a bad thing for trade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:21am

Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
tell that to island, spain, ireland... I could go on. Wassail (and no the drink;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:22am

Re: Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
iceland*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:41am

Re: Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
tell that to island, spain, ireland...

Span and Ireland (and Greece) can't print money because they are in the Euro - so of course the statements above can't work for them like for other countries.

Iceland is very small and so the loss of trust - if they tried to inflate everything away - would be too great. Their best strategy would be to default (Russia got away with that one a few years back)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:04am

Anybody wants to play Sonic(made by fans)

http://www.youtube.com/user/HouseholdHacker#p/u/9/cfffNjKKAmQ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
packrat (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:30am

ops : 3d gen AI composers
I myself take a GREAT pleasure in telling industries how fast they've become obsolete.

a standard feature in my film editor is automated music; it's tremendous leap in automated music. (auto tempo from scene changes etc)

no great stretch to see the same AI in essay writing and productions of ANY kind; web sites, hate campaigns, distraction news, real time virtualization...

cut+paste sampling is kinda dead, just another tool. auto-tuned automated AI generated composition will wipe the whole industry clean real soon.

you graduated this year? Congrats, you're obsolete.

packrat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robb Topolski (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:06am

It's true
Mike,

After reading day after day of Techdirt, I'm a pessimist because these issues are both clearly wrong and little progress is being made to correct them. However, I'm ever grateful that you highlight them accurately and faithfully.

I couldn't do it. After weeks and months, at some point, I'd just have to give up disgustedly. I'm happy that it doesn't get to you and that it doesn't really bend you, either.

Happy new year, Mike!

Robb
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:59am

Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Something I still don't understand after reading techdirt for years. Why is innovation the ultimate goal? Why is innovation the most important thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 7:50am

Re: Re:
Not if the vast majority of content publishers insist on dragging their feet on any change as long as humanly (and lawyerly) possible. The current approach for the majority of published content is more PoF+RtP than CwF+RtB.

They don't try to connect with fans, they sue fans. They don't give them a reason to buy, they give them ever more reasons to pirate by making authorized content more cumbersome and less convenient than their pirated alternatives.

Yes, there are some companies innovating and doing well by it but they're still the exception rather than the rule. Most media publishers really need to decide whether their ultimate goal is control or profit. Right now they're trying for both and not doing well at either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 8:03am

Re: Re:
"After all this time, who exactly is he blaming for it not creating even a ripple in the industry as a whole?"
At a guess, the corporations who control at least 80% of the market and most of the promotional channels used by the mainstream. Who have fought, tooth and nail, any new business models and attacked their own customers instead of finding ways to sell to them. Who still refuse to offer a decent service to many parts of the world and don't even want to licence some artists for legal sale, let alone offer them in a format and method that the consumer wants. They're getting there slowly, but it's a long wait, and people are just tired of handing over their cash for a substandard service.
"the concert business is falling apart too"
Do you have any more recent cites for this? That link is nearly 6 months old, and also makes a note that many artists are doing very well if you read it to the end. A more detailed one is this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/30/rock-concert-sales-plunge
"Concerts have become highly profitable for the musicians themselves, with touring grosses rocketing as ticket prices have risen. Worldwide, the face values of tickets increased 3.9% on average to $76.69 in 2010, up from $73.83 in 2009."
"Although ticket prices rose slightly worldwide, in the US the average ticket price for the top 50 tours dropped 2% to $64.74, Pollstar reported."
Unless I'm mistaken, that's saying that artists are benefiting, but people are finding concerts by the top 50 artists overpriced and unaffordable during a worldwide recession. Even then, the tickets seem to be selling but they've had to - shock, horror! - actually lower their prices to those their audience can actually afford.
Excuse my lack of sympathy. This isn't a sign of anything other than the prices were inflated before, and people who spend money on entertainment might prefer to, say, but Red Dead Redemption and enjoy a few nights in rather than getting raped over a concert ticket for double the price.
As ever, you're welcome to come up with data that suggests that the industry as a whole is suffering, but this isn't it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 8:05am

Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Because it leads to whopping great bags of money for the innovators, duh. For a brief while, innovators stand alone in their chosen field and all the trade in that field goes to them. If they can manage to keep doing it time after time, they make themselves and their investors obscenely wealthy.

Those who can't or won't innovate have to trust in the public to never desire more or better. It's been my observation that this is not a realistic hope for any span of more than a few years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 8:06am

Great Job Mike
Just to keep things in perspective here's a link to a Fox News video to keep you pessimistic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 8:08am

Re: Great Job Mike
Ha, my browser is proof against your pessimism! It refuses to play the clip.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 8:10am

Re: Re: Re:
They're getting there slowly, but it's a long wait, and people are just tired of handing over their cash for a substandard service.

You just used they're, there, and their all in the same sentence and all correctly. I think your Internet license is about to be revoked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 31 Dec 2010 @ 8:49am

No pessimism here. It can be disheartening to watch certain people/companies/industries yell at the wind and punch at waves, still boneheaded enough to think they can sue the world into stagnation, but then we get great stories of creators doing something new and fresh and, most of all, FUN to make themselves successful, however they might choose to measure such standards, and it really is inspiring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 9:02am

Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?

Why is innovation the most important thing?
Do you fancy living in the 14th century?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patty, 31 Dec 2010 @ 9:11am

From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
We are always slower to change than our technology. What is interesting about the changes we are going through now is that we get to see it all played out in far more detail than ever before as the mass mind grapples with a new age. At the same time there is an element of inevitability at work, a push that feels almost beyond the actions of the individuals who make up the whole.

I think another thing that the digital age will allow us to see in a few years is the mathematics of human behavior en masse, that there is a Golden Mean proportion to conservative and liberal impulses, fractal landscapes, strange attractors and so forth that we will be able to track, perhaps one day predict (but no better than we predict the weather).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 9:16am

Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
If you're the same "Anonymous" who seems to have disappeared once challenged from another thread, would you mind answering my questions? Very suspicious that you'd stop posting so soon after your assumptions were proven false and I asked for your own credentials:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00032812332/piracy-isnt-problem-bad-busine ss-model-is-problem.shtml#c1585

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00032812332/piracy-isnt -problem-bad-business-model-is-problem.shtml#c1541
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 9:27am

Re: Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
...not to mention that he takes a single out-of-context quote from AJ without either acknowledging this fact not the fact that he and Mike went on to continue the discussion.

He's literally quoted a single sentence, phrased as a personal attack, from a clearly biased 3rd party and pretends that proves something. Reading comprehension is hardly his strong suit, which explains a lot of his positions if he's who I think he is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
:)

Seriously though, I know from the assorted trolls here that writing a decent sentence can go a long way. I may not be right all the time, but it helps to present your argument as though you're not still in some kind of remedial class!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 9:38am

Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
So its all about getting rich?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 9:39am

Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Since when are progress and innovation the same thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 10:03am

Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
In the business world? Yeah, pretty much. Occasionally you come across someone who manages to both create something innovative and do the other necessary things well enough that the world actually hears about and uses it but the two usually aren't combined in the same person.

Sure, there are millions of people who create just because they need to. I'm one of them. But most of us care more about the creating than about anyone actually using what was created.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Look up the definitions. They're closely related enough that you can't really have one without the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 10:07am

2011 should be interesting, because the legal noose around much of the Generation Diss sites is tightening. You know the sites, they operate by sort of ignoring the rules of copyright and don't seek permission to use things, they just take.

It is very likely the rules of the 230 / safe harbor provisions will be tightened to eliminate coverage for companies who are providing the infrastructure for this sort of thing. Rapidshare pushing into the lobbying fray in Washington will possibly find themselves instead stoking the fires against them.

2011 may also go down as the year that piracy is pushed out of the public space, giving way to mostly private, invite only networks. While these networks already exist, you can expect to see more and more of the public faces of file trading disappearing, as the political and criminal pressures build against them.

2011 will likely also be the year where selling the scarce things will falter. Already, concert ticket prices are forecast to drop, as well as overall concert dates. As more people try to sell things like t-shirts, their time, and their attention, it becomes less and less likely they will be able to do it. Supply and demand pretty much dictates that much of this will fail.

Finally, 2011 is also likely to see some of the first social network collapses. My (blank) Space is teetering on the edge right now, things like Digg have all but dug their own graves, and even sites like Facebook and Twitter are going to have to face user fatigue. The good news is likely something else will come along to absorb the user time.

In all of this, there are few new business models that actually have any financial legs. There has only been a few scant successes in 2010 (Groupon raised a lot of money, not sure if they are really profitable at this point), and many of those look fairly transient and likely to be hurt by lower margin competitors in the future.

The biggest roadblock in moving forward is convincing people to pay for things, either with their money or their attention. We still face a culture that blocks ads, deletes commercials, and drops sites if they dare to put advertising in the stream. Piracy is only the most obvious manifestation of this, as is ad blocking software. Business models are not business models if the users of the product / service / whatever are unwilling to "do business". It is a two way street, and right now, all of the traffic is going one way, away from actually doing business.

Finally, I hope in 2011 that TD becomes more open to alternate ideas and views. I look forward to a situation where the answer to dissenting views isn't "oh grow up" or "tl;dr" and so on. TD can be incredibly informative and very mentally stimulating, but heavy slanted views and nasty attacks make it a challenge at times.

Happy New Year everyone, even you Darryl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 11:08am

pessimism is in the eye of the beholder?
I tend to find that reading techdirt makes me depressed for two reasons, the first being that i am one of the many who are struggling to find/create a new business model that works for me, secondly because your posts continue to highlight the ignorance, bias and sheer self-centred greed of our elected officials on both sides of the atlantic.
I still read because i still think it's better to know and be depressed than to be ignorant and blissful.

P.S. I think that CwF + RtB = $ is missing a term, i think there's a factor that covers how you raise your work (in whatever medium that might be) above the mass of quality output. I think it should be e(CwF+RtB)=$ where e = elevation (for lack of a better term, pardon the pun). An example of e might be either something like a mass publicity stunt (at one end) or targetting a very, very specific niche (at the other end), for example the lady (who's name i forget) who writes the sailing songs.

Hmm, long comment, probably needs a blog...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 11:39am

Re:
Some of the points you make do have fairly broad premises. For instance "convincing people to pay" implies that nobody wants to pay at all, ever. This certainly isn't entirely true or the we'd see a staggering retraction rather than the slow economic growth we are seeing now.

Which leads me to remind you there are a lot of normal working people out there right now with smaller budgets and larger bills. My guess is over half of the country is literally doing more with less than they did 3 years ago.

Keep the disposition of consumers, and the ongoing money grabs by the "entitled" few, in mind when lamenting the drop in ticket prices and other market indications in 'elective' markets such as entertainment.

There has always been a, relatively small, demographic that refuses to pay for anything. Deadbeats in this era, their numbers may be increasing some due to the ease of "infringement", make a larger impression today owing to the fact that they can easily grab entire catalogs of work in a short time. Even still there is a big difference between a drop in sales, and a void of sales.

Also, in my experience the people least willing to pay for anything have in general been the most wealthy. Keep this in mind when 'assessments' of the situation come from fabulously wealthy executives. We always see what we see inside ourselves.

I see a brilliant year of opportunity coming for us all.

--
Thanks TD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:00pm

Re:
The biggest roadblock in moving forward is convincing people to pay for things, either with their money or their attention.
No, the biggest roadblock is trying to convince people to pay for things instead of finding out what they are prepared to pay for and offering that.

So long as you insist on trying to force the customer to deal on your terms, instead of being prepared to deal on theirs - then you will fail.

I'd like to add that - just as with jet aircraft in the 50's we are in a time of experimentation. Most experiments fail. With hindsight they look stupid - look at the pogo and the Goblin.

We should expect success to be rare - as it always has been - and don't neglect the fact that lowered entry barriers mean that there is now much more competition about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
So its all about getting rich?

That, and the fact that the Constitution says it's the sole reason for copyright to exist.

"To promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NikeHerc (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:14pm

New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism
I didn't see pessimism on Mike's part, but I surely felt it.

I did 650 hours of research for a National Park Service cold war web site in the early 2000s. At the end of that work, I felt dirty from discovering a lot of ugly, nasty stuff our government had done during the cold war.

I'm beginning to feel the same way now with the techdirt revelations of how our government has been taken over by moneyed interests. I see no hope for the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re:
Limp Bizkit canceled their tour? And:

Pollstar said fans "may be turned off by piggish top-tier prices, resentful of ticket add-on fees, and downright angry when they hear about discounted tickets after they have paid full price."

Well, no fucking shit Sherlock. I heard the independent concert scene is doing okay. But the corporate concert scene is struggling?

But corporate music is so awesome!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
It's TAM, isn't it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:33pm

Re:
Reddit.com is doing pretty well. They even had a little CwF+RtB and bought some more equipment.

That community even raised $500,000 for the DonorsChoose charity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
The way techdirt defines innovation is invention+market success. You can have profits without invention and you can have invention without profit. Progress is a component of innovation. There is plenty of progress without innovation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 12:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
To be honest I'm not sure what you are getting at exactly. I asked why innovation is the ultimate goal. Blizzard claims the reason for innovation is to get 'whopping great bags of money'. Then I asked if it was really all about getting rich. Now you seem to be saying that innovation is about getting rich and copyright supports that. Are you saying that we arrive at innovation because of copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:31pm

Happy new years, community. Be safe, but live dangerously tonight....I find myself in Omaha for some reason, but I'm sure all will male sense after a few drinks...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:38pm

another cite
Here's the wsj on the double digit declines in the concert biz:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576049972873921068.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:38pm

Optimism
In the spirit of optimism, I'd like to re-post some links to industry insiders who are actually very optimistic about music.

First and foremost is Jeff Price's excellent analysis of the music industry, from the TuneCore blog.

Part I: Music Purchases and Net Revenue For Artists Are Up, Gross Revenue for Labels is Down
Part II: The Impact of DMCA Streams and Why They Should Be Considered
Part III: How a Skewed Perspective Delegitimizes Artists
Part IV: The Growth Phase is Over? Improved Label Margins
Part V: When Good Laws Turn Bad
Part VI: The Hills are Alive�

Next up is an article by Jeff Hunt at the Globe and Mail:
Don't fear the pirates

I'd also like to nominate the New Rockstar Philosophy book for being the most informative guide that came out this year. I'd like to, but it didn't actually come out... you could only get a "beta version" of the book. That version is no longer available for download, but when a revised "beta" comes out, it will be available again. So, keep watching their website:
The New Rockstar Philosophy Book

Also in 2010, CDBaby reached a milestone:
CD Baby Has Paid Artists More Than $150 Million

Speaking of CDBaby, I'd like to send my fellow artists to a helpful post on their DIY Musician Blog:
Don�t Suffer for Your Art: 12 Rules to Becoming More Creative
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
Fact-based approach? Hah. Once again he talks in vague generalities about people who are supposedly enjoying "amazing results". Occasionally he graces us with numbers, but in most cases they're pretty disappointing. One guy made money selling music boxes. How much? We don't get that fact.

I'm actually surprised that there aren't more successes. While I think that giving things away is not a stable, long-term strategy for the content business, it can work. Shoot. The PBS and public radio have been milking the donation game for a long time. But they've always been a small part of the business and they're getting smaller while circumventing all of their principles by putting ads at the end of shows. Ooops. I meant to say sponsorship announcements.

But there aren't. If you want a real fact-based approach, read something like paidcontent.org. They're filled with numbers, some exciting and some depressing. But there's little of the hookah pipe smoking going on around here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:53pm

Re:
"male sense" Ha Ha, I thought you had a girlfriend.

Happy New Year DH!! Thanks for all of the laughs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Are you saying that we arrive at innovation because of copyright?

I'm saying Techdirt considers innovation "the ultimate goal" because it's supposed to. Innovation is what leads to progress (social, economic, or scientific), and promoting progress is the sole reason why copyright exists.

That innovation helps people make money is an added bonus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 Dec 2010 @ 1:57pm

Re: another cite
"Irving Azoff, Live Nation's executive chairman and the manager of numerous major acts, last year told The Wall Street Journal that recorded music represented as little as 6% of some clients' income�down from 50% a decade ago."

BUT, BUT, BUT MUSICIANS DON'T MAKE MONEY FROM SELLING ALBUMS! THE GREEDY RECORD LABELS TAKE IT ALL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Ah, I think I see what you're getting at now.

The way techdirt defines innovation is invention+market success.

Well, Mike is a businessman, so of course he's going to focus on innovation that brings market success. Other Techdirt authors (e.g. Nina) focus on other aspects.

But, I think you're slightly off about Mike's viewpoint. A better wording would be innovation + market success = progress.

There is plenty of progress without innovation.

I disagree with this 100%. It's possible to have market success without much innovation (the "99% perspiration" part). But without innovation, progress is impossible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re: another cite
down from 50% a decade ago.

Considering Live Nation's clients, this is totally meaningless.

In 2000 - hell, even in 1990 - 90% of musicians on a major label made no money whatsoever from selling recorded music. If you were on a label, you made money from touring and selling merch, or you didn't make money at all.

Of course, if you were part of that 90%, Ticketmaster and Live Nation wouldn't touch you. They've only ever dealt with the top 10% of people on a label, so naturally their numbers are skewed.

Also, this revials the source bias in the WSJ article. They're talking about the concert intake for the 50 biggest acts. Their overall numbers seem to be gathered exclusively from Ticketmaster and Live Nation. But those companies won't even touch the smaller venues, and there are far more smaller venues than there are arenas.

Even so - what's remarkable is that the decline didn't happen until 2010. The recession started in 2007, and even with the "recovery" that's starting now, most Americans' incomes have been significantly reduced. It's only natural that they'd pay for rent before they paid to see a band. Yet during the worst years of the recession, concert income increased. That's hardly the worst news in the universe.

It's also instructive, in that the reduction in concert income cannot possibly be blamed on "piracy." So maybe the industry will finally put that dog to rest, and start figuring out ways to actually listen to music fans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re: Re: another cite
Um, "revials" = "reveals."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 3:02pm

Re:
2011 should be interesting

I hope you're wrong in your predictions, because the scenario you present is about as doom-and-gloom as they come. None of what you predict will help artists make money in any way, but most of them will make the country worse for everyone.

Fortunately, I think your predictions are wrong. The laws that you propose would cripple America's technology industry, and if those companies are seriously threatened, they have a lot of money to push back. On the other hand, since the legacy media industries are dying, they'll have less money to buy off Congressmen.

Also, people are no less willing to pay for things than they ever were. Mostly, they're just broke. The economy is (slowly) improving, so I think peoples' willingness to buy will likewise improve.

So I'm still optimistic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 3:36pm

Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
Oh, Anonymous. It's the New Year. Take stock of all that is great in your life. Don't be a Scrooge. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 Dec 2010 @ 3:38pm

Re: Re: Re: another cite
It's not meaningless at all. The top acts are also naturally the ones whose music is going to be ripped off the most.

The point, which you willfully ignored, is that income went from 50% to 6%; a huge drop and one that is comparable to all acts that were on labels, whether major or indie.

There's no justifying the stealing of this income from musicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 3:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
What you are saying is that profit is the ultimate goal and that innovation is the best path to profit. Sound about right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 Dec 2010 @ 3:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
Sorry pal, no. The link is there so anyone can read the entire conversation and read Masnick's hilarious and willfully blind piracy apologism.

I pointed out how ridiculous the poster's statement was about Masnick's take on things and you don't like that. Tough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 Dec 2010 @ 3:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
Oh don't worry, I am, AJ! Happy and prosperous New Year to you :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Profit is the ultimate goal of businesses. Innovation is the best path to profit in nearly every area of business.

Just also saying to bear in mind that when speaking of innovation you're almost never speaking directly of inventors or artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
I would have gone with Idea + Execution = Innovation. And yeah, Execution is about a hundred times more important than the idea, possibly more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
The point, which you willfully ignored, is that income went from 50% to 6%; a huge drop and one that is comparable to all acts that were on labels, whether major or indie.
You obviously don't understand figures do you

Income from recorded music went from 50% of total income to 6%.
In other words income from sources other than recorded music went from 50% to 94%.

It doesn't tell you anything at all about total income.

Also it is clear from that article that the cause of current declining incomes is the recession not piracy. Piracy didn't start or increase significantly in 2009 or 2010.
People are spending less on all forms of entertainment now because they have less money themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Define it as Idea x Execution = Innovation and it makes a lot more sense. Looked at like that there is zero progress without innovation. Until an idea is executed no progress is made.

I know this isn't /. but I'm still going to go with a car analogy. Take a car stuck in the snow. Come up with a million ideas on how to unstick it. Until you actually execute one of them no progress is made on becoming unstuck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Rather go with Idea x Execution = Innovation so that a zero in Execution leads to a zero in Innovation. Yes, the change is mostly so math nerds won't piss and moan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
It's not meaningless at all.

When you're in the 90% that made no income from record sales, a drop from nothing to nothing is meaningless.

The top acts are also naturally the ones whose music is going to be ripped off the most.

Wait, not going to their concerts is "ripping them off?"

If that's the case, then I've been "ripping off" Top 40 acts for my entire life, and I'm proud of it.

The point, which you willfully ignored, is that income went from 50% to 6%

The income of only the top 10% went from 50% to 6%. Or so claims the Live Nation guy. Frankly, I don't buy it - even major pop stars from 20 years ago made relatively little from artists' royalties.

I'll admit I don't know any pop stars, but I have hung out with indie rockers for decades, and I've released records and toured myself. Absolutely none of us ever made 50% of our income from artists' royalties. Even back in the 90's, we made it from touring and selling merch, same as everyone else.

There's no justifying the stealing of this income from musicians.

Not paying for something is not "stealing." I haven't paid for a Top 40 record for decades. Of course, I also haven't listened to one (voluntarily).

The decline in Top 40 concert attendance is a perfect example. That decline cannot possibly be blamed on piracy. Something else must be going on. If you're a Top 40 artist or label, it's your job to find out what that "something else" is, and fix it. If you don't, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

...But that sounds overly negative. In fact, lots and lots of people have figured it out, and are making money. If you're an average musician - one that's unsigned or indie - there are more opportunities to make money now than ever before. Not necessarily a lot of money, but more than you could make ten years ago. And if you're a music fan, more music is being produced now than at any other point in history. If anything, the problem is too much music, not too little. An embarrassment of riches is hardly a doom-and-gloom scenario.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:04pm

Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Its simple Name them, so we can determine if you are lying through you ass or telling the truth.. at present we have to assume you are lying.

A couple months back, I had a really fascinating experience. I had two meetings in a row, each with incredibly successful content creators -- people who have embraced new business models and new technologies to amazing results, both creatively and monetarily.

So why not name who they are ??

If they are what you claim, then you should not no issue with naming them, helping to promote them and most importantly allowing us to determine if your claims are true.. (often we find they are not)..

So how can we believe you this time ?, Name them mike, and stop censoring us.

What I found amusing, however, was how at some point, in the middle of each of those meetings, the person I was talking to sat back, laughed, and said "you're such an optimist about these things!"

If these two people you talk about are what you say, being successful, and making money and so on.

WHY, would they think you are optimistic ? whould they not also be SO OPTIMISTIC ? after all they are doing well, making money, selling content.

And they claim you are optimistic, and therefor you must consider those two highly sussessful content creators, who are doing to consider themselves pessimistic conpared to you.

WHO ARE these two 'people' you talk about, that are successful, pessimistic, and who consider you opimistic ?

Can you see how none of this passes the sniff test Mike..

It simple does not smell right, it smells like something made up by you for effect.

If you are not outright lying, you will have no problem naming the two you met with, so we can guage ourselves if you are talking the truth or not..

as it stands, its sounds like an outright lie, just something made up for effect.

Because if those two really existed, and had acheived what Mike said, he would of most certainly named them..

Mike does not name them, becuase either they dont exist, or they do exist but have not reached the level of success mike claims they have..

Either way, Mike you can clear this up with some simple FACTS and the truth.. both of which are free from copyright.. so why not use them ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:13pm

Re: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism
Techdirt is doing exactly the same thing, it as been taken over by moneyed interested, and with TD I also see no hope for the future.. (we'll I do but it would require Mike to become unbiased, and not chasing the Google $$$$$ for add).

If you think for a second Techdirt is not in it for exactly the same reason that the government is you are sadly wrong.

If you think TD is here just for the good of the community, you are wrong..

There is one reason why TD is here, and one reason why it does and says what it does..

TO MAKE MONEY... you just have to look at this web site,,

EVERY square MM of this site is given over to google adds, so they can make Mike TO MAKE MONEY !!!!..

If mike did not make money from this, he would not do it.. he is not doing out of the good for the community, he is doing it because he can make an easy buck..

No wonder he is optimistic LOL.. he does not have to create, compete, or produce to make a living..

He has cut and paste, and /. to help him...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:14pm

Hey Mike,

Happy New Year to you and yours! I truly mean it. A little optimism sounds great to me. We should all be happy for the wonderful things we have. :)

Even though I give you a lot of flack because I think you're hopeless hippie, I really do love your site. More often than not, the stories you post are the very subjects I'm interesting in. I don't think I've gone more than three days in a row without reading your blog in the past 8 months. Obviously we're don't see eye-to-eye on most issues, but I truly appreciate the way you make me think about what I do think and believe about things.

Thanks for doing such a great job in maintaining this site, and again, Happy New Year!

AJ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:19pm

Re:
thankyou, and well said also, Happy New Year to you all.. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:41pm

Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
On the other hand, since the legacy media industries are dying, they'll have less money to buy off Congressmen.

You see, sometimes, according to TD the legacy media industry is dying, and there are all sorts of reason given as to why.

Then at other times, when it suits TD, they will state quite clearly, that the legacy media industry is doing very well.

TD says that when they are trying to say piracy is not hurting mainstream content creators.

But when it suits him, he will say the opposite, and claim the minstraem content creators have the formula wrong and are failing. Like you said.

So depending on what type of argument TD is trying to make, the music industry is either doing very well in spite of file sharing. OR. it is doing badly because of its poor business model..

If you say its successful in one article, and failing in another, one has to think which one if true is which is false. or it can be concluded, that neither are true or false, but just what Mike felt needed to be said for best effect.

In that case, truth, facts and such have no place in Techdirt.

Like what have you EVER seem Mike write about two successful content creators, who do thing different to the 'normal' model. And NOT NAME those two people, and show their success ???

The ONLY time is here, And I have to ask why ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:41pm

Re: Re:
darryl you forgot to put your name on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
amazing, yes, blame it on the major content providers for dragging their feet on a new scheme that is supposed to put them out of business !!!.

You cannot blame them for not adopting Mike 'scheme', you can be critical of how successful that scheme has been in the marketplace. That was done here.

And as far as that goes, it has not been very successful at all..

So its a bit funny that you blame the 'old' and working system for not adopting a 'new' untried system.

You do not blame all the people who tried the 'new' Mikes system first off and failed at the start.. as most artists do.

At least you can put the blame for its failure where is should be..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 5:54pm

Re:
The biggest roadblock in moving forward is convincing people to pay for things, either with their money or their attention. We still face a culture that blocks ads, deletes commercials, and drops sites if they dare to put advertising in the stream. Piracy is only the most obvious manifestation of this, as is ad blocking software. Business models are not business models if the users of the product / service / whatever are unwilling to "do business". It is a two way street, and right now, all of the traffic is going one way, away from actually doing business.

My new years resolution. Never ever buy or pay anything to pro-IP people, find legal alternatives.

Then next Christmas maybe they will not be around anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:13pm

Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
You see, sometimes, according to TD the legacy media industry is dying, and there are all sorts of reason given as to why. Then at other times, when it suits TD, they will state quite clearly, that the legacy media industry is doing very well.

You seem to be confusing "media industries" with "legacy media industries." It's a common mistake.

I'm a musician, so I'm interested in the music industry. It might be different if we were talking about Hollywood (which had its biggest year in history last year).

And major music labels are certainly dying. The thing is, they're not dying because of piracy. They're dying because people simply don't want to buy CD's, something that wouldn't change even if piracy could be eliminated. Forcing consumers to buy albums is the only way the labels know how to make money, because like most oligopolies, they haven't had to face a free market before.

But "the music industry" is not "major labels." If you look outside the majors, the musicians themselves aren't doing too badly. We're not facing the "end of the music scene" or anything like it. Quite the opposite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hardly Mike's scheme. Only the name is his. The rest is basic economics. Or, to phrase it more sensationally for you since I know how you love to overdramatize things, Capitalism: Compete or STFU and fail.

In any case, I was hardly speaking of revolutionary change or wacky marketing ideas. Two fine examples of Big Media's failure to evolve with the market and compete are letting Netflix and iTunes beat them to the punch. And then, after seeing their success, to still refuse to enter a market ripe with opportunity and instead blame their failure to adapt to changing market conditions on their customers.

Hell, the entire ebook industry is currently ripe for the picking by anyone with the drive to make a site better than Amazon's sad excuse and the balls to insist on paperback or lower prices for a format with less value than a paperback.

And yes, I will always blame fools who are too timid to try to expand their business into new markets and distribution methods. Their failure lies entirely on their own shoulders if they see the failure of their business model coming and rather than try something new, cling onto the old via litigation and legislation. I'm an unapologetic capitalist like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:20pm

Re: Re: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism
Hilarious stuff!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:23pm

Re:
I can't speak for Mike, but I wish a happy new year to you, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:28pm

Re: Re: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism
Speaking of /.
-1 Grammar
-1 Spelling
-1 Troll

Hell man, why don't you spout some GNAA garbage in some First Post comments while you're at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:30pm

Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Seriously, Darryl, go back to Troll College. Your shat is feeble this week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:38pm

Re: Re: NEW YEARS RESOLUTION FOR MASNICK: T-SHIRTS LOOOOOOOTS OF T-SHIRTS
Agreed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:41pm

Re: Re: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism
So you read... what, exactly?

Oh, I see. You don't actually read anything on here, which would totally explain your posts.

Thanks for clarifying. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:42pm

Re:
And remember! This could be your next-to-last New Years' Eve, ever. Use it wisely!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:43pm

Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Its simple Name them, so we can determine if you are lying through you ass or telling the truth..

How would knowing their names help you 'determine the truth'? Are you going to call them up and ask them about it or what, lol?

at present we have to assume you are lying.

Why is that, exactly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 6:44pm

Remember!
This could be your next-to-last New Years' Eve, ever. Use it wisely!

No, seriously, Happy New Year, everyone. The next time you hear from me, I might be sober again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rosspruden (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 7:37pm

Thanks to you, Mike, and Techdirt
Mike, you are a constant beam of light in the darkness. Thanks for all that you do (the prolificacy of your posts never ceases to astonish me), and I look forward to the next year of Techdirt, and beyond.

Happy New Year!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eamon (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 11:00pm

Identifying the problem is the first step to solution
Agree. I have never taken your writings to be pessimistic. Only by clearly identifying the problem, can we take steps to finding solution. Thank you for your work. It inspires me to do my best to make the world a better place. Happy New Year. Keep your insights coming!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 1:11am

Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
You might want to find out what "The Great Depression" was all about. If you think Governments cannot go broke.

Or the situation in the US right now, where they cannot afford to make ends meet, and are required to borrow huge sums of money off China.

Historically Governments 'go broke' all the time. You have state governments in the US that are not able to pay for the services and utilities they are required to provide.

So how can you say Governments can't go broke ?

A governemnt cannot 'just print money' either, as you related to inflation, it can work for a short term, to for money circulation. But, that money has to become worth something, by economic stimulation. or by the flow on effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 1:17am

Re: Re: Re:
They are not attacking their customers, they are attacking people who are willing to take their product illegally, by stealing it. Without paying for it.

That is quite simply against the law, and that is why they go after those who do that. It's not their customers they are going after.. No. their customers are the ones who legally use their product. The ones who are willing to pay for something they want.

They go after those who are not willing to pay for something they value, and want.. there is a huge difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cm6029 (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 2:39am

As a TD follower of several years, I've found its informative and balanced. I consider myself fortunate to live in a society that tolerates and mostly encourages such a level of discussion, and that's still the most amazing aspect of all this. Don't change a thing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 2:46am

Re: Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
Well did anybody seized the assets of those countries and liquidated their governments?

Broke for states have another meaning, "I don't believe you will keep your promises".

The funny part is that third world countries have advanced banking systems and economies and don't rely on external debt, that is why they were not affected by "the current recession" so much and are growing, they have no strings attached to anyone and hoarded a lot of money to cushion their economies in cases like this, not to mention the clever dispositives they came up with to control inflation and internal debt despite rampant corruption, while other "developed countries" floundered because of inter dependencies.

So no governments can't go "broke" they can loose trust and others will not trade with them and that would be bad, but broke in the sense we all understand it is not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 3:05am

Re: Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
The great depression was a deflationary period, one which repeats every seven years or so, but in that case it got really bad.

Bankruptcy is a legally declared inability or impairment of ability of an individual or organization to pay its creditors.

Source: Wikepedia

You know that the U.S. is bankrupt don't you?
But it doesn't feel like it yet, does it?

Now how are they able to continue if they are broke?
Make no mistakes the U.S. doesn't have the money to pay its debt and everybody knows it, so explain why they are broke and are still doing something?

Mostly the G7 is running on fumes for some reason while the "third world" is the one with real money at the moment or to be more precise, they are the ones producing something, it is not about money it is about work done, those working and producing something are the ones that are secure economically, those who pretend to command something betting on imaginary goods to save them will become the third world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are not attacking their customers, they are attacking people who are willing to take their product illegally, by stealing it. Without paying for it.

Well that is what you choose to believe and that is fine, is just not based on reality. They are attacking their most loyal customers, you know the ones that care to go after what you are peddling, because if it was me you never see a dime ever. Frankly I need you for nothing and I'm quite happy to not buy, rent or donate anything to you and the likes of you.

About illegality well that remains to be seen, laws change and with enough pressure sooner or later laws will change in favor of what people want then it will not be illegal dude.

They go after those who are not willing to pay for something they value, and want.. there is a huge difference.

How do you know that, do you have any proof?
Of course you don't because you are talking out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
Hi "Anonymous", still avoiding my questions, I see! Easier to attack independent musicians for "stealing" from top 40 artists!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
So, no response to my questions and a re-assertion of the points you claim without any evidence. Alrighty then!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
Karl, thanks for your usual insight and intelligent response to this moron's claims. May your 2011 be very fruitful indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:40am

Re: Re: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism
So, TD is here to make money, which is suddenly a bad thing in darrylworld.

What's your excuse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:44am

Re: Remember!
No! Not sober!

Seriously though, you have a good one too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and Darryl reveals his lack of reading comprehension for the 5362the time in 2010. Happy new year!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"a new scheme that is supposed to put them out of business"

Yes, damn those Betamax and VHS manufacturers for forcing theater owners out of business!

(makes as much sense as you)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:19am

Re: Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
Historically Governments 'go broke' all the time. You have state governments in the US that are not able to pay for the services and utilities they are required to provide.

So how can you say Governments can't go broke ?
Governments that have their own currency cannot go broke in terms of that currency because they can always print more.
This of course excludes US state governments and Governments that use an external currency like the Euro (eg Ireland, Spain, Greece.)
Printing money will ultimately cause inflation - but at present we are very far from that scenario in most major economies such as the US, the UK, Germany, France, Japan etc.

The great depression was caused by attempting to fix currency rates against Gold. Increasing technology driven growth increased the supply of goods and services faster than the gold miners could match - resulting in a shortage of money and deflation. The solution was to move to a fiat money system (as we have today) and to start printing money. The great depression is a warning against what happens when you don't print enough money.

At present we do have one real problem - but it isn't an imbalance of public vs private spending - rather it is the trade deficit with China - largely the result of the Chinese having held their currency artificially low for many years. Latterly this trade deficit has been financed by loans from China. At present the Chinese don't seem to realise how dangerous this situation is to them. They seem to think that it is our problem. Actually it is theirs. What exactly are they going to do when (not if) we default?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well on the other hand people treating their customer with some level of respect are ripping 1.8 million dollars.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91793/pay-what-you-want-game-sale-closes-totaling-1-8-milli on/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:27am

Re: Re: another cite
Live Nation dude?
Seriously?

Now explain why the top 100 musicians today are paying more taxes than they did 10 years ago if they are not making more money?

Those claims sure are suspicious to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:37am

Re: Re: another cite
Could it be that people finally got fed up with the greed of those people and are turning away from them?

Yay! Victory, no more money for the parasites of culture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:39am

Re: Re: another cite
Quick question who here will pay to see Bozo Bono sing?

I sure am not and I was a fan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 7:01am

Re: Re:
Back at ya, Karl. Happy New Year!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 1 Jan 2011 @ 7:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
90%??? LOL You pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 1 Jan 2011 @ 7:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
You seem to be getting desperate, Paul, with all these made up accusations and kill the messenger type posts.

If piracy is so easy to defend, you wouldn't have to do that, would you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 1 Jan 2011 @ 7:41am

Re: Re: Re: another cite
You described the pirates perfectly. Nice work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 1 Jan 2011 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Darryl just made an excellent point. And fairly succinct also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:41am

Re: Re:
There is very little forcing of customers in any business. Any force that exists comes from the consumers own desires. Nobody brings a CD of music and puts a gun to peoples heads in order to make them buy it. The consumer wants the music.

The problem is that piracy has taught an entire generation that music is "free". They no longer consider it something that should be paid for. They won't buy the CDs, they won't listen to commercial radio, they won't pay for satellite radio, and they won't use websites that include a commercial aspect that pays for the music.

The real challenge is in convincing these people that music is something they should pay for, because it is worth paying for. Their terms right now are "do it all, do it for free, and give it to me in a lossless FLAC". That isn't a business model, that is a waste of time.

With concert sales down and ticket prices forecast to drop, it is clear that even the scarce goods aren't getting enough takers. There is a whole generation of people who just aren't inclined to pay for anything, they would rather wait for the pirates concert video instead.

Yes, there are (and will be) plenty of failures. In any shifting market, some people shift onto solid ground, and others end up standing on quicksand. I hope that TD isn't shy in 2011 to show that there are some rather significant failures in the process, and accept that the pet theory (cwf) isn't always the answer. A less strident message would probably work a whole bunch better.

Successes are rare, and they should be celebrated. However, the few successes don't prove the theory, and realistically we still have very few "new" music models that are working out to reasonable (career) levels.

Perhaps 2011 can be the year where TD backs up just a little bit and starts to look at their theories with a little more of a critical eye, perhaps accepting that it doesn't all work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
When? All I see is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that are easily proven wrong. Maybe you should look at what "succinct" means as well because that's hardly it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
So you'regoing to continue to avoid my questions then? Great.

Oh and please explain exactly where I'm defending pirates? All I see is you attacking people for things they clearly don't do rather than address their points. It's pathetic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
...and again we see the anonymous moron attacking independent musicians for not subscribing to his preferred world view. No wonder the artists you claim to represent are failing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 9:07am

Re: Re: Re:
It workds better than trying to stop the unstoppable.

Online piracy as you called is people showing one another what they like, yes it damage record sales, but not the others sources of revenues.

What doesn't work and will never is trying to force people into compliance when they hold the power to not buy.

People pay for music, they just won't pay to get a record of it anymore, that is not going to happen, they also will not repay nobody to remake their own collections that business model is dead, is gone, there is no coming back.

It has been a decade since I last spent any money on a CD or music from big labels and acts. Since the Sony DRM fiasco, Bozo Bono and Mickey act, Metallica ranting and suing everyone. Am I going to rent(there is no buying music) music from those people?

Hell no!

Am I going to buy tickets to see those people?

Hell no!

The number of people getting pissed is just increasing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 9:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are not attacking their customers, they are attacking people who are willing to take their product illegally, by stealing it. Without paying for it.

And what possible purpose could that have - other than wasting money on legal cases - if these people never become customers? (as they surely won't if you take them to court)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: Re:
Also the older generation is not buying(renting really because people don't buy music they rent it because of copyright).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
No I described you dude.

The greedy bastard that don't know how to let go and will try to ruin for everybody, throw a fist and make a scene because people are doing things in different way now.

But don't be scared, the government have your back they surely will pay you if all else fails LoL

Because if they don't I'm sure not going to give you a dime, not a f'king penny ever, law or no law you people will never be part of my world again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Does your idea of execution include market success? I've seen ideas executed, products created that worked and then no one bought them. Is a 'get your car out of the snow' widget that works but does not sell really progress?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is innovation the ultimate goal?
Tech companies tried for years to make a tablet fashionable able came in and realized what was missing was the interface.

It is evolutionary not revolutionary.

If it is not selling and doesn't have a demand there probably is a problem in the execution, not the product.

Like music, people will not buy CD's anymore they don't buy discmans they buy mp3 players, the record industry failed to come up with a good alternative and they tried a lot until somebody from the outside did it right and it became a sensation, the industry focused so much on control that they ended up loosing everything.

People don't need to buy music, they enjoy it and some grew up listening to songs and connected with artists, the industry is now destroying those connections and things will be grim for those who believe they can force anything unto the people. New solutions will come up and they will be left behind. That is poor execution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 9:59am

I have never thought you were pessimistic
Mike,

I must admit that reading TechDirt for some time I have generally become pessimistic and cynical about how things are going regarding the IP trolls, entrenched old school monopolies/cartels and their respective increasing control of government.

I also share the optimism that there is more opportunity than ever for creators, such as in my case, software developers.

All that said, I've never considered YOU to be pessimistic. You're just the messenger. The truth, both the new opportunities, and the death throes of dying dinosaurs are what they are. You're just making the news easy to find.

AT&T: rethink pessimism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 1 Jan 2011 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Just knowing the names would be very helpful. I've checked out some of his claims in the hope that there's something to his wild optimism and most of the time I find mildly pleasant news that ends up being a big disappointment.

Consider the story of Motoboy, a musician that gives his music away and made money by selling a limited edition of signed music boxes. It's a nice idea that might buy a few cases of champagne, but it's not going to pay the rent.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml

Knowing the name helps us understand if there's really something there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 1 Jan 2011 @ 10:15am

Re: Optimism
Why is CD Baby a good milestone? They sell CDs and legal downloads. That sounds like Mike's definition of an old business model run by people who "don't get it." While it's a reason for musicians to be optimistic, it sounds like perhaps the everything-for-free folks are the ones who are wrong in this case. CD Baby is kicking it old school.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 1 Jan 2011 @ 10:26am

I'm a longtime reader, occasional commenter, and I just wanted to let you know, Mike, that I've always found your posts here at TD to be some of the most rational, level-headed articles I've ever read. So keep up the good work, and Happy New Year!

Oh and Anonymous, complete non-industry citations and a complete chain of causality showing step-by-step how the sharing of a specific file has harmed a specific artist in a specific fashion and exactly when and where, or a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now. Or every post you make from here on out will be reported.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: Optimism
CD Baby is a site that fills a particular niche. It's a middleman between the artist and the consumer that addresses a particular need. Therefore it's valid.

The ones who "don't get it" are those who think that this is the only way to make money and that if they fail to capitalise on CD sales then their entire business is lost. CD Baby fills the gap for those artists who want to sell downloads and CDs but don't want to sign onto a label. If the labels themselves fail to realise that not every artist wants them, and that selling copies of songs is not the only tactic to represent the artists that are signed, That's their problem and the mindset that's being criticised.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
90%??? LOL You pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?

Nope:

Typically, less than 15% of all sound recordings released by Major record companies will even make back their costs. Far fewer return profit.

- Hilary Rosen, testifying before Congress in 2000 (she also repeated that figure at the Kagan Streaming Broadband Summit in 2001)

It's a risky business, with only about a 10% success rate.

- Cary Sherman, testifying before Congress in 2005

Only about 1 in 10 CDs released by major labels make any profit for the label.

- Stephen Sherrard, "Record Deals versus Independent Releases"

this is an industry with less than a 10 percent success rate, and that's on good day

- American Bang finally get their major-label debut

Such mechanisms imply criticism of major labels' A&R departments that rely on a 10 per cent success rate: nine out of 10 acts fail, with the rare golden geese providing funds to record and promote less popular names.

- How bands became businesses

Keep in mind that artists don't earn any royalties until well after the label starts turning a profit. I'd give those details as well, but Techdirt already has an article about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
Karl, thanks for your usual insight and intelligent response to this moron's claims. May your 2011 be very fruitful indeed.

You're very welcome. Happy new year to you too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 2:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Just knowing the names would be very helpful.

Again, as I said to Darryl, how would that help?

Consider the story of Motoboy, a musician that gives his music away and made money by selling a limited edition of signed music boxes. It's a nice idea that might buy a few cases of champagne, but it's not going to pay the rent.

First, it's more than he would have made with a label, since most acts end up in debt. I think a few cases of champagne in return for doing what you love is a whole lot better than a heap of debt, don't you?

Next, who said that art has to pay the rent? Artists do what they love because they love to do it. Anything more is gravy.

Last, there is plenty of evidence that more artists are making more money than they were with the old exploitative label system. Are they all partying like rock stars? No, but that's not necessary for the creation of art. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re: Optimism
Why is CD Baby a good milestone?

Why wouldn't it be? They're making money and paying artists. That's a good thing.

And they're doing it without bribing Congressmen or suing teenagers. That's also a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 2:53pm

Happy new year everyone
Hey everyone,

Trying to stay away from the computer most of this weekend, but dropped in and read the comments. Happy New Years to everyone. Thanks for yet another spirited discussion -- and special thanks to those of you debunking the silly claims being made by the usual folks. It would be nice if we didn't have to keep teaching basic economics, logic and statistics every few days, but such is life on the internet, I guess...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
notstephencolbert, 1 Jan 2011 @ 2:56pm

EXCLUSIVE Video feed of what happens at Techdirt Studios...
I think this video summarizes Techdirt nicely--

I bet Mike is like David Asman-- sitting between two Joes in the video- The One Joe smoking a Cigar, and the other Joe with a bottle of Champagne.

Start this video 3:40 in--

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4479794/outrage-continues-over-snow-removal/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
No actually, Darryl once again got it right, you folks are too busy mentally doing the "tl;dr" or whatever it is to notice.

On one hand, TD will claim that the recording industry is dying, losing money hand over fist, and laying people off like mad, making it sound like they are sinking faster than GM was.

Next time, they are rich and powerful and can afford to pay all sorts of money for lobbyists, campaign donates, party support, and all sorts of stuff.

Either they are rich and can afford it, or they are failing, poor, and cannot afford anything. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and the top touring acts for 2010 were all major label acts, as well as all the top selling music. Hmmm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 4:53pm

Re: TELL us the NAMES please Mike..
how about you just tell use who the two you claim to have talked too ??

just NAME them, you've always named people you claim are doing very well.

I would like you to name those two people so we can all see that you are no lying, and just making this story up..

If you are making it up, that is quite sad, and shows what levels you are willing to go to.

If you are not lying, you will be happy to name those two people so we can confirm you are not lying..

Either way, your failure to answer this simple question confirmed that you are lying in this case..

otherwise you would have said the name straight away..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 5:03pm

PROVE IT IS NOT A LIE MIKE ??? if you can, NAME THEM !!!!
Mike I hope you're new years resolution what that this year you would stoping making up 'facts' and only write about stuff you know.. and not stuff you make up..

But if your first article for the year, is based on a big FAT lie, then that is not a very good place to start.

IF it is not based on a BIG FAT LIE, you will be able to easily show us that you are not lying..

That FACT that you HAVE NOT DONE THAT, tell us only ONE THING MIKE..

IT IS A BIG FAT, DIRTY, SMELLY, FESTING LIE

What other conclusions are we to draw, you have over the years been the first to name people who are doing well with an alternate system..

EXCEPT HERE.. why is that Mike,, there can only be one reason, NONE of this actually happened, you just made it up in your own mind, and now you are trying to avoid being caught out :)..

But as usual it is SO easy to catch you out Mike..

Its one thing that is easy proving you lie, but sadly it will be nearly impossible for you to admit to yourself of your 'readers' that you have been lying to them for effect.

Shame on you mike..

What levels will you sink too too prove a point ??

Or clear your name, and repair your reputation, and shoot me down, and prove you are no lying through your teeth, and the first think you did this year, was give us a big fat lie for new years..

But you got some page hits, and google will send you some money, so im sure it was worth it to sell out your reputation for a few bucks. and to lie to your readers..

ofcourse you could EASILY prove you were not lying, if in fact it is the case that you were not lying.

But by all accounts, you are A lier Mike... How do you feel about that ? happy, proud ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 5:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Rose, not being able or willing to name the two he talks about, is for a reason..

What could that reason by ?? it would not to be to protect them, because he claims they are highly successful, if that is the case, why not let us judge for ourselves.

That fact that you do not want to know who they are, just looks like you totally believe 100% what mike is telling you..

And it is clear from this, that is not the case. If he is willing to make claims about people, and himself, he should be able to back up those claims..

Otherwise, again, he just looks like a dirty, nasty, liar, who is doing it to get money from you..

If I make a truthfull statement, and someone calls me a liar, I will PROVE I DID NOT LIE, on principle, I will not have someone call me a liar if I did not lie..

But Mike does not seem to think that way, that means either two things, 1. IT IS A LIE, and mike is ashamed of it and wont admit he lies to his readers.

Or it is not a lie, and for some, unknown reason for the first time in mikes like he refuses to name two artits who have been successful with an alternate method.

But he will not name them at all..

Or defend himself,, I know Mike you cannot defend youself, when you know you are guilty as charged...

So why bother even trying, and Rose why appologise for him??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Knowing their names would help us all in determining the truth, Mike made claim about their success, and their method of success.

Mike NEVER talks about alternative success, without telling us who is doing it..

It will tell us if Mike is at least telling the truth that he spoke to two very successful alternative system content creators.

If that is the case, then Mike telling us the names will allow us to determine if mikes claims that they are very successful is true or not..

And if that is not true, that is a very good chance that the converstation's never took place...

It's also curious why someone who is succeeding in the industry, would consider someone else to be optimistic, surly they would also be optimistic, as as far as mike says, they are doing very well..

Then why are they pessimistic ?, it just does pass the sniff test..

It does not make sense, therefore its a lie..

And if it not a lie, im sure Mike, would defend his reputation and prove that is the case.

His failure to do that, just confirms to all that what he did say, the first post of the year, is based on a big fat, dirty, smelly, festive lie..

That mike refuses to correct
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 5:39pm

Re: Re: Re: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism
I read everything, even between the lines....

The fact is this, and im sure you have read many many of mikes posts, can you tell me out of the probably thousands of Mike's post..

Can you show ONE example, where Mike is talking about the success of someone using an alternate method, and that Mike does not NAME, and promote for that ?

Thousands of articles, from mike he ALWAYS NAMES THEM, to show how well they are doing, and to help promote them..

The fact he did not do it in this article, can ONLY mean one thing, to most thinking readers.. WHY ??

And what reasons can you think of as to why, because if he named them, people like me would look them up, to confirm if they are successful or not..

If they are not, then that is a lie from mike, and if he lied about that, why would he not lie about the entire thing..

Just make it all up for something to say..

Why would two artists who are doing very well according to Mike, consider Mike optimistic ? would they also be optimistic, after all they are doing well.

And Rose...

Just because you do not want to ask such probing questions, and prefer not to know..

Im sure many readers here do read that and wonder why on earth Mike would not just say who they were, for what reason could he be not willing to name them.

And the ONLY conclusion you can draw, is that it is a lie from the start..

If someone called me a liar, I would do everything to prove that was not the case, Why does mike not do the same..

I assume he would, if he could prove it was not a lie.. I would, anyone would..

The ONLY reason someone would not try to defend themselves agaist the accusation of a lie, would be if that was true, and they have no defense agaist it.. that is where Mikes stands at present..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 5:54pm

If this really happened, Mike would name those who said it..
I had a really fascinating experience. I had two meetings in a row, each with incredibly successful content creators -- people who have embraced new business models and new technologies to amazing results, both creatively and monetarily.

So you know at least 2 people who are using new technologies to amazing results, but you will not name them.

TWO OF THEM, what a coincidence ?

What I found amusing, however, was how at some point, in the middle of each of those meetings, the person I was talking to sat back, laughed, and said "you're such an optimist about these things!"

TWO seperate, people, two seperate meetings, but they are both 'big in new technology, blah blah'. but what is AMAZING IS THIS:

was how at some point, in the middle of each of those meetings, the person I was talking to sat back, laughed, and said "you're such an optimist about these things!"

and you were amused !!!

so two separate meetings and two totally different people, 'sat back, laughed, and said "you're such an optimist about these things!"..

Really Mike, what are the ODDS of that happening ?? what are the odds of us believing that happend, as you claim it did..

just out of nowhere, two different people did exactly the same thing to you, (in a row), made exactly the same comment, and were in exactly the same position in terms of their success in the new tech, content market ??

and you expect us to believe that really actually, honestly happend..

You might of found it amusing most here find it totally unbelievable.

Mike are you banking on the majority of readers here not asking questions, that need to be asked and who will not bother to check your claims for fact.

Mike the best way not to be caught out on a lie, is not to lie..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:18pm

Holy God, I think Darryl's snapped. I'm seriously worried about what he'll do if Mike has the audacity to not name those two people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
They were also the most pirated. Hmmm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:22pm

Re:
Don't worry, Darryl is just being a liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
well said, and watch all the excuses that are put forward, to try to justify it as not theft, and not damaging to the artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:56pm

Dude somebody who whatches FOX news is not credible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 6:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only excuses I see is people like you that try to justify real theft and misappropriation of culture to continue this absurd unsustainable endeavor you call "copyrights".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2011 @ 7:03pm

Re:
The crazy dude got excited about the names LoL

Even though there is no purpose or real use to know those names.

Will anybody buy more from darryl's world if he knew the names?

Discover that next week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
What could that reason by ??

Maybe that it's irrelevant? The point of the anecdote was that, in person, Mike is often seen as optimistic. He could have quoted his wife and kid, for all that it mattered.

That fact that you do not want to know who they are, just looks like you totally believe 100% what mike is telling you..

I never said that I didn't want to know. I asked how knowing would help you determine the truth of his statement. You still haven't answered, by the way. If Mike answered and named two people who fit the bill, how would you verify that?

If he is willing to make claims about people, and himself, he should be able to back up those claims..

Yes, God forbid that he only tell us the relevant parts of an anecdote. I mean, I love having my time wasted by hearing unnecessary details. /sarcasm

Otherwise, again, he just looks like a dirty, nasty, liar, who is doing it to get money from you..

First, he's never looked like a dirty, nasty liar, so your statement is pretty crazy. Next, not naming the two people that called him optimistic doesn't make him a liar. Last, in what way is Mike attempting to extort money from us with that anecdote?

If I make a truthfull statement, and someone calls me a liar, I will PROVE I DID NOT LIE, on principle, I will not have someone call me a liar if I did not lie..

That's patently untrue. You've lied on many occasions, and have been called on it on many occasions. Ironically, I'm calling you a liar.

But Mike does not seem to think that way, that means either two things, 1. IT IS A LIE, and mike is ashamed of it and wont admit he lies to his readers.

Or... maybe it means that the names were irrelevant and he had better things to do on New Year's Eve than stick around and read your demands for details.

Or it is not a lie, and for some, unknown reason for the first time in mikes like he refuses to name two artits who have been successful with an alternate method. But he will not name them at all..

Where did you get the idea that Mike was 'refusing' to disclose those names? Did you speak to him and ask him to disclose those names? Did I miss a post where he stated that he was refusing to disclose those names? Or are you just assuming that he 'refusing' to disclose them because, again, he had better things to do on a holiday weekend than stick around and read your ravings?

Or defend himself,, I know Mike you cannot defend youself, when you know you are guilty as charged...

Again, at what point has he refused to defend himself? Can you point it out, please?

So why bother even trying, and Rose why appologise for him??

I'm not apologizing for anyone. I'm simply the voice of reason that so often follows illogical posts, many of which are from you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:13pm

Re: PROVE IT IS NOT A LIE MIKE ??? if you can, NAME THEM !!!!
What does 'festing' mean?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:14pm

Re:
I agree. He didn't have far to go and I think he's gone there...

Is it sad that I'm amused?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:38pm

Re: Re: TELL us the NAMES please Mike..
how about you just tell use who the two you claim to have talked too ??

Hi Darryl. These were private meetings. I have private meetings with people all the time, and if I want to keep having private meetings, it means I don't disclose who I meet with in private unless they've given permission. In this case, they have not, so I will not.

As pointed out elsewhere, who these individuals were has little to do with the story, but I can assure you they are both very real. The point of the story was simply that I found it amusing that both of them said the exact same thing within a few hours of each other -- combined with what I saw on Techdirt after those meetings. I don't see what good disclosing the names would do other than to have two people never wish to meet and/or work with me again.

Separately, I'm not sure I understand the point of posting this question at least seven times, other than to make you look like a foot-stomping child. Do you think that makes you look more or less credible?

Finally, Darryl, I find it ever so amusing when you insist that you are always factual and do not lie. Just this past week, I called you out on multiple factual errors. In one of the posts you even commented later, and totally ignored me pointing out your many factual errors. I've tried multiple times to respond to you on the assumption that you mean well, but are very, very confused. But at some point, it makes me wonder.

Have a happy new year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Just knowing the names would be very helpful. I've checked out some of his claims in the hope that there's something to his wild optimism and most of the time I find mildly pleasant news that ends up being a big disappointment.

I meet with folks in private all the time. I don't name them, because they are private meetings. Who these individuals are having nothing to do with this particular story.

Consider the story of Motoboy, a musician that gives his music away and made money by selling a limited edition of signed music boxes. It's a nice idea that might buy a few cases of champagne, but it's not going to pay the rent.

Motoboy makes his living as a musician, so, yes, it does pay the rent. Not just the music boxes, but everything else he does as well.

Separately, as Rose points out below, he's making much more (again, he makes his living entirely as a musician) than he would have under the major label system. If I recall properly, he tried to get a major label deal and was unable to, before hooking up with his current indie label.

The point -- which we keep making and which people keep missing -- is not that everyone who uses these models will be successful, but those who use them can be more successful than if they had gone a different route.

If you honestly think a single anecdote of someone not being able to pay the rent disproves this model, then you really should go look at the major labels and how many signed musicians have trouble paying the rent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Either they are rich and can afford it, or they are failing, poor, and cannot afford anything. You can't have it both ways.

Someone doesn't understand the difference between rate of change and absolute numbers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:51pm

Re:
Hey AJ. Happy new year to you too. Appreciate having you around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 10:23pm

Re: Re:
Sure, there is no real purpose, if you do not care that Mike is lying to everyone, that is..

But if Mike wants to be taken seriously, or dispute the claims I have made to his honestly. He can easly do it, by giving us the facts.. And not just something he made up..

So the purpose is to allow Mike to prove he is not lying, and if he refuses to do that, then we can only conclude he IS lying..

Either way, Mikes actions have served their purpose, it has exposed him for what he is.

And shown by his unwillingness to simply state the truth, confirms, to most that he is lying..

Why else would he have not named them ? what purpose does NOT naming them serve Mike ?? except to hide a lie !!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 10:31pm

Re: Re:
If that is the case, I will be happy to defend my point and prove that I have not lied..

All I ask is that Mike has the balls to do the same.

SO ok, you accused me of being a liar, show me where I have lied please ?

There is nothing wrong that if you think I have lied, you should be able to tell me where I lied, and explain how it was a lie and so on..

In other words, you have the balls and facts to back up your claims.

I made a claim about Mike, and he has not replied to it at all, If I am accused of lying, that is fine, show me where and I will defend myself.

I am not going to be called a liar if I am not one..

But Mike seems to accept it, and is unwilling to defend his position..

I have to ask why, and the ONLY reason why Mike would not defend his integrity, is if it was a lie to begin with.

Its clear by his own account it was a lie, from what he said, and what he said those two different people did on two different occasions IN A ROW.

And you think for some reason that is "true" ??

So Mr, Anonymous Coward, how about telling me what my lie is please.. or STFU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 10:51pm

Re: Re: Re: TELL us the NAMES please Mike..
oh they were 'private' meetings HAHA, yes sure..

Those individuals has everything to do with the story, and are you honestly trying to say two seperate people on two seperate occasions, IN A ROW 'sat back, laughed and .. "??

I knew that there was no way in the world you would name those two, I had zero doubts that you would come through on this one..

If I have to ask you a million times, to be honest and truthfull, then that is your problem not mine.

You would not have that problem if you did not try to make things up, things that make no sense, and can only be something you just made up.

When was the last time you talked about people who are successful and using new technolgoy, without naming them, and showing their success.

You did not in this case, because you knew that people like me would see if were telling the truth.

And it is clear from this avoiding response that you have no intension of telling the truth.

I also have to ask why are you quoting from a 'private' meeting, it seems its only private to a degree, depending on how much you want to make up.

But basically it is clear that you refuse to name them because it either never occured (most probably), or that the two you talk about are not actually successful.

And why would two people who are successful in new technology content creation, believe that you would have been pessimistic ? can you explain that one either ?

Would they not see that you are optimistic, because you're 'predictions' about their success was correct.

Why would they have thought you would have been pessimistic ?

None if makes any sense, and if it does not pass the simple sniff test, if it does not 'smell' right, then most probably is it a lie..

And you're reply has done nothing to show that is not the case.

I am happy for you to detail factual errors, and I would be very interested if you can show me where I have lied.

Factual errors, are not lies, is saying you had meetings with two people who said EXACTLY the same thing, is a factual error or a lie ?

But nice try, I am happy to defend any facts I state here, it appears you are not willing to do that yourself.

Show me where I lied, and I will defend myself with facts, If I show you where you lie, you attack me LOL.

Typical.. but it does not get you anywhere,

When you are a child, you're mom should of told you not to lie, where you away that day ?

What I find amusing is your lack of ability to address the real issues, and your ability to make up things to suit yourself, as if those meetings actually took place, or that you know two people who are using alternative tech to create content and make money..

We all know the chances of you know two such people, and having meetings with them IN A ROW, and that they during the meeting say the same thing to you, that would not be expected from someone doing well in the field ?

And your 'response' to the simple qestion, add up to just one thing Mike.

and you know what that is allready, or maybe you're are actually trying to fool yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 11:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Fact is Mike,

No one ever expected you to name them, we KNOW it's impossible for you to do so.

You restored my faith in your Mike, there was never any question that you would name these two people, allthough In no time in the past have you even NOT names someone who you claim is doing well with alternate tech content.

Just his once, and the reason why you did it this once, is so clear, that ANYONE can see it just for what it is..

The fact that you did not just say the names and be done with it, and you fluff around the point, and call for 'privacy' as if that has ever been your concern in the past.

But you open the door, you tried to gain points from who you associate with, and when questioned on it, it appear that those points you gained were the result of a lie, a falsehood.

A lie to allow you to make a point, and nothing else.

If it was not, ANYONE would defend their statement, but you do not, what reason could there be for your willingness to be accused a lier.

It must be because there is some substance to my claims, backed up by your lack of ability to defend your claims..

So based on that, what else do you tell us that is not true, what else do you just 'make up' for effect ?

How can we trust anything you say ? when the best you can do when called on a lie, is say "no it was not"..

and "privacy".. that is just not how an honest person conducts themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 11:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: TELL us the NAMES please Mike..
Hi Darryl,

I'm not sure why I bother responding to you, but there is an admitted amusement factor here.

I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat it: I did not lie. The two meetings took place, and the two people said what they said. Saying so did not violate the private nature of the meetings, because (obviously) it did not reveal anything about who was in the meetings or what the substance of those meetings was about.

Naming them obviously would.

oh they were 'private' meetings HAHA, yes sure..

Yes, they were. Contrary to your amusing assertions at times that no one respects me or listens to me, we have many individuals and companies who seek out my advice on a regular basis. I keep the meetings private, because that's how business is done.

Those individuals has everything to do with the story, and are you honestly trying to say two seperate people on two seperate occasions, IN A ROW 'sat back, laughed and .. "??

No, those individuals had very little to do with the story, but the *very factual* point of what happened was useful to illustrate a point that leads into the rest of the post. I'm curious as to how you think knowing the individuals would impact the story one way or another.

That said, yes, in both meetings, the two individuals I am discussing literally sat back and laughed and made a comment about my optimism. That's why I remembered it so clearly.

If I have to ask you a million times, to be honest and truthfull, then that is your problem not mine.

Not really, no. Especially when I am honest and truthful, as I am here, and you claim I have not been. What kind of individual would do that, Darryl?

You would not have that problem if you did not try to make things up, things that make no sense, and can only be something you just made up.

Darryl, are you familiar with how private meetings work? This is a serious question. If I were to reveal the names of these two individuals, why would anyone agree to meet with me privately again in the future?

But basically it is clear that you refuse to name them because it either never occured (most probably), or that the two you talk about are not actually successful.

I'm sure they're amused as they count their money, that you doubt their existence.

And why would two people who are successful in new technology content creation, believe that you would have been pessimistic ? can you explain that one either ?

Darryl, no one said that they thought I would be pessimistic. In both cases, we were talking about various strategies, and they pointed out reasons that they weren't comfortable with this or that, and I noted why I didn't think it would be a problem, and their response was to point out my optimism. Ironically, one of those discussions involved the person in question worrying about having to deal with foolish commenters online -- and I suggested this wouldn't be a problem (for a variety of specific reasons in that particular case, which had to do with a very specific project). Perhaps you are proving me wrong on that point.

None if makes any sense, and if it does not pass the simple sniff test, if it does not 'smell' right, then most probably is it a lie..

Or you simply misread things and blew something small totally out of proportion for whatever reason went through your mind.

Occam's razor, Darryl.

Anyway, Darryl, I have explained myself. Everyone in this thread is free to read your comments and my response. I would like to get back to spending time with my family, and thus, I will say good night, and leave you alone. I know this answer will not satisfy you, but I believe it's clear by now that no answer will satisfy you, because you do not wish to be satisfied with answers to your questions.

Once again, Darryl, have a happy new year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 11:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: TELL us the NAMES please Mike..
We all know the chances of you know two such people, and having meetings with them IN A ROW, and that they during the meeting say the same thing to you, that would not be expected from someone doing well in the field ?

No, actually, we don't. Please, Darryl, express to us the statistical probability of that occurrence.

Or admit that you LIED and you don't actually know the chances of that occurring!!!!!

:P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 11:20pm

Re: Re: Remember!
And after all of that, I barely drank. :P

Hope you had a great New Year's Eve as well. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 11:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
One final response to Darryl, since he keeps making false claims a la:

" In no time in the past have you even NOT names someone who you claim is doing well with alternate tech content."

This is false. There are plenty of folks I speak to who are doing interesting things who I do not write about. That's often because what they're doing is interesting on a micro level, but of little wider interest to folks here. Or, sometimes it's because it's someone working on something new, and they don't want things to be discussed at this time.

Honestly, I hear from folks doing interesting and compelling things all the time, and I don't write about most of them.

So, please, cut the crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 1 Jan 2011 @ 11:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
that someone seems like you Mike !!

What are you trying to say ?? perhaps you might want to explain the difference between rate of change and absolute numbers. For us..

We allready know the absolute value of -3 is 3, but I do not see what that has to do with the point of the subject ?

What are you trying to say,

The media industry is doing very well, but failing very fast ??

Is that how you think you can have it both ways, yes, they are doing well, but their rate of change of doing well is high, so they are doing well but going bad fast.. Ahh ok.

its a shame that is not the case, and as with your refusal to name those two you 'claim' to have met.

You also refuse to explain how you can have it both ways at once, but now you do it by a tiny bit of nonsense double talk. Clear it right up in one line.

You failed to address the question, and just saying things does not make what you say any more meaningfull. or logical.

But it's not in your benifit to be clear, concise, factual, or or accurate.. is it..

You just have a quick one line dig, and question everyone elses intelligence, never addressing their actual question..

You talk TOO people, you do not talk WITH people, you dictate your terms and goals, and will not accept any other views..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Jan 2011 @ 11:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
"Either they are rich and can afford it, or they are failing, poor, and cannot afford anything. You can't have it both ways."

False dichotomy. It's perfectly possible for them to be sinking into a hole, but still have enough capital to bribe politicians to game the system for them. Especially as the majors are parts of huge corporations with many activities outside of the music industry. It's not sustainable, but that's the point of most peoples' comments here.

"Oh, and the top touring acts for 2010 were all major label acts, as well as all the top selling music. Hmmm."

So what? Is that meant to prove some kind of point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 12:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
What gives me great confidence the industry is screwed is no intelligent person come out to debate anything only darryl's come out of the woodwork and they are just batshit crazy LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KenComber, 2 Jan 2011 @ 2:51am

Reaction to innovation is negativity
Hi Mike

I love your posts. I don't see you as being filled with rage, rather I like that you point out the obvious, and allow me to come to my own conclusion. So many blogs seem to simply push an agenda and I loose interest. Your carefully written articles amaze me most of the time and I fear that you know more than you are letting on. .I love your work. Keep it up see you next year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 3:54am

Re: Re: Re:
"I made a claim about Mike, and he has not replied to it at all"

....FACEPALM! It's New Years DAY, you dolt....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 3:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: as all the US states go broke
P.S. How does the U.S. taxpayer let alone the U.S. Treasury pay back its interest? Oh! you don't... Then why? oH yeah.. the Fed is private banks. The rubber stamp on the constitution is "UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT".

Funny thing is, even my 8 year old knows interest on "fiat WE MUST PRINT NOW!" will never be repayed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 4:04am

Re:
Wow for a second there i thought I was reading a cracked article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 4:14am

Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
"The ONLY time is here, And I have to ask why ?"

In the words of Rage against the machine.

... it has to start somewhere ... what better time then NOW?

btw check the case studies sometime, ya tend to ignore those a lot Daryl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 4:33am

Re: Re:
Nah, I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before in other post to this same question posed many ways when it comes to Daryl or the rest of our lovelies.

I think its almost compulsory to click the 20+ comments on the main page of TD to get your daily laughs in, oh let alone contribute to the discussion. Fare our next year of more joyous occasions.

Daryl + Holiday Spirts = Bad Mojo jojo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 4:45am

Re: Re: Re:
I may regret this but here goes.

What's in a name? must we classify everything? ... humor anecdote fin.

Didn't you mom ever teach you about the shoulda could woulda's? should be a moral. could do a hypothetical. would do it given my moral.

What purpose. Oh, keeping sources confidential hasn't been covered ad infitinum with WikiLeaks in the past month. Tsk, Tsk Darryl. I worry about you sometimes on that short term memory loss. Or is it just plain black and white world for you? There may be other issues at stake but those are just off the top of my head.

Both the parts of the cup are important; full or empty it matters not. Enjoy the next drink Darryl or you seriously going to need therapy after how much time you devote here. Provoking answers and getting them only gets ya so far. Wisdom is knowing how it actually applies for not just the altrustic reasons but a little perspective for us all. After all, it cant rain all the time.

Note to self: Seriously need to stop watching the Crow for New Years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 5:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Either they are rich and can afford it, or they are failing, poor, and cannot afford anything. You can't have it both ways.

First of all: they are dying, not dead. At their peak (1999), the recording industry brought in about $40 billion. That number has dropped off significantly - but even as of 2008, it's still a $27 billion industry. (A number, incidentally, which is about the same as before the CD "boom" in the 90's.)

Second of all: three of the Big Four are branches of multinational corporations (Warner cut ties with Time Warner in 2004). Even if the labels fail completely, their parent corporations can still prop them up with income from other revenue streams.

Lastly: there is no question that they "pay all sorts of money" for lobbying. Since 2007, the RIAA has spent $42 million lobbying the government. And they're spending more as time goes on: in 2007, the RIAA spent $2 million, but in 2010, they spent $1.40 million in Q2 and $1.29 million in Q3. And that's just from the RIAA itself - labels also give more money through other consultancies and lobbying organizations. All told, they spent roughly $5 million in 2010 and $5.9 million in 2009.

I would question the wisdom of a dying industry spending ever-more money to bribe congressmen, especially when the laws they buy won't actually help their businesses. But there is no question that's what they're doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 2 Jan 2011 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: Re:
In other words, you have the balls and facts to back up your claims.

I made a claim about Mike, and he has not replied to it at all, If I am accused of lying, that is fine, show me where and I will defend myself.

Wait, where are your "facts to back up your claims"? You've accused Mike of lying but have no facts or proof. You're lying about Mike being a liar, so PROVE that you aren't lying.

Damn it, I think I just got tricked into arguing this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 7:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Someone doesn't understand the difference between rate of change and absolute numbers.

It really doesn't matter, either they are rich enough to get the job or they are not. If they are dying, they wouldn't have the budgets to do that sort of thing.

What I think you are failing to accept is that, even in decline, the recording industry is still more than just the top dog, they are essentially the only dog. There are a few paper cutouts in the shape of a dog, perhaps one or two stuffed toys that look like dogs, but in the end, there is one big dog.

So perhaps in 2011 you can accept that the recording industry isn't going to disappear overnight, that they still have plenty of income, plenty of sales (and increasing sales to boot), and that they dwarf all of the great business models you push combined.

Oh yeah, that and that many of the poster children for the "new" music business are the same ones who got rich and famous in the "old" one. Even your great friend Amanda Palmer has worked with Live Nation.

So please, pick one story and stick with it. It will make your point of view so much more credible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 7:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TELL us the NAMES please Mike..
To summarize,

not reveal count their money I have explained myself

Got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TELL us the NAMES please Mike..
What I find amusing is to see Darryl come here as a guest on Mike's site and demand things from Mike all the time.

If Darryl was a guest in real life in my house and started demanding things like he does here he would be promptly thrown out on his ass without a second thought.

Mike, you have much more patience than I ever would. Kudos to you and have a Happy New Year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 10:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
So perhaps in 2011 you can accept that the recording industry isn't going to disappear overnight, that they still have plenty of income, plenty of sales (and increasing sales to boot), and that they dwarf all of the great business models you push combined.

So why are they so worries about piracy then - if they are doing so well anyway you can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 11:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
All of that talk increases your sales how?

I'm not gonna miraculously start buying anything from you, in fact I don't want to.

You ranting about pirates and calling them thieves, freeloaders and criminals and your insistence in pushing the enforcement button only gets me more annoyed why should I give you money? are you crazy or something?

You had a small market today, you want to keep that little market you change your attitude sir or more people will just walk away, no amount of laws will safe your hide got it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
"If they are dying, they wouldn't have the budgets to do that sort of thing."

That makes no logical sense, especially as they can get funding from elsewhere within the corporate groups to which they belong. They're clearly throwing a lot of money away of trying to save their old business model, including significant amounts of lobbyist money.

"What I think you are failing to accept is that, even in decline, the recording industry is still more than just the top dog, they are essentially the only dog."

You make no sense, perhaps English isn't your first language? Are you trying to say that recording is the only way to make money from music (demonstrably untrue) or that no other part of the industry will ever be as big (then why is it the only part in major decline)? Are you trying to say that music recording is the only part of the entertainment industry as a whole that matters? What exactly are you talking about?

"Oh yeah, that and that many of the poster children for the "new" music business are the same ones who got rich and famous in the "old" one. Even your great friend Amanda Palmer has worked with Live Nation."

That makes no sense either. How does the fact that Palmer has worked with Live Nation, founded in 2005 for the express purpose of promoting the "new" model (concentrating on finite goods that cannot be infinitely copied) somehow disprove said model?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 12:09pm

Funny!
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/gpl-killed-the-mpaa-star

From 2007 when the MPAA tool responsible for snooping on people was a ripoff of an opensource project.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Paul, your replies are always a challenge, mostly because I think you intentionally try not to understart. That or you are just not getting it. Let's go bottom up:

How does the fact that Palmer has worked with Live Nation, founded in 2005 for the express purpose of promoting the "new" model (concentrating on finite goods that cannot be infinitely copied) somehow disprove said model?

Live Nation has been shunned here before, because their so called 360 deals are essentially just the dreaded record labels trying to muscle in and take a big cut of the ticket prices too. Live Nation is the incarnation of big music taking it all over. You would think that considering Amanda Palmer's opinions of record labels, that she wouldn't want to deal with the devil again.

Are you trying to say that recording is the only way to make money from music (demonstrably untrue) or that no other part of the industry will ever be as big (then why is it the only part in major decline)?

So close! You almost got it, but you still fail. They aren't the only way to make money from music, but none of the other business models out there are really adding up to a hill of beans compared to it. As for "other parts", consider that 2010 was the year that concert attendance dropped, and 2011 is the year that ticket prices will drop to try to keep up.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/touring/concert-ticket-prices-expected-to-drop-in-100 4137184.story

So don't try to make it as if the rest of the music industry as a whole isn't suffering as well... they are!

They're clearly throwing a lot of money away of trying to save their old business model, including significant amounts of lobbyist money.

What you aren't getting is that failing buisnesses just don't have that type of money. If they are firing employees by the dozens and shutting down their businesses, where would they find millions to fund "powerful lobbying efforts". Either they are broke and failing, or wealthy and powerful. The only point is that TD needs to choose one position and stick with it, not change sides every other post when needed.

If they are truly dying, all the lobbying in the world won't help, and they shouldn't be able to afford it anyway. So where are we really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
When you're in the 90% that made no income from record sales, a drop from nothing to nothing is meaningless.

This is rather clearly false. Even if you make net nothing from your label contract, you still made a ton. You got recording made, you got product out there, you got publicity, support, and at least partial tour support up front. All of that isn't nothing.

The decline in Top 40 concert attendance is a perfect example. That decline cannot possibly be blamed on piracy. Something else must be going on. If you're a Top 40 artist or label, it's your job to find out what that "something else" is, and fix it. If you don't, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

The kickback is most clearly about high ticket prices, high fees, and so on. What has happened is simple: Piracy is hurting one part of the business, and everyone (including TD) has said that they can make it up by selling the scarce, which includes concert tickets. Ticket prices went up, the number of concerts went up, and surprise, ticket sales tanked.

The problem is simple: There isn't enough market to support that many acts doing that many concerts at that price level. They are running out of suckers to overpay for concert tickets, because that is what is paying for the rest of the business model. It is a clear failure of proportioning of costs, where recorded music sales would cost fans a small amount each, concert ticket sales are hitting a smaller group much harder. As soon as they figure out they shouldn't pay, or they run out of money to pay, the model entirely collapses.

If you're an average musician - one that's unsigned or indie - there are more opportunities to make money now than ever before. Not necessarily a lot of money, but more than you could make ten years ago.

There is more money total, but there are more people fighting for it, and more people thinking they have a chance in this new music economy. The results? Income per artists aren't going up. Income remains the same (see the British reports for an understanding that total music business income is pretty flat for 10 years) but more than twice as many people are trying to get a piece of the pie. As an independent artist, you are having to fight even harder to pay your bar tab, let alone make a living.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
> Live Nation has been shunned here before, because their so called 360 deals are essentially just the dreaded record labels trying to muscle in and take a big cut of the ticket prices too. Live Nation is the incarnation of big music taking it all over. You would think that considering Amanda Palmer's opinions of record labels, that she wouldn't want to deal with the devil again.

It's so funny when shills lie, because it's so easy to point out that they lied:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1910593046.shtml

Which discusses Live Nation's 360 deals as "a step in the right direction," though it does question how successful they'll be as the specific structure was risky. But nowhere does it say that this was just a repeat of the big record labels.

Shill = fail.

> They aren't the only way to make money from music, but none of the other business models out there are really adding up to a hill of beans compared to it. As for "other parts", consider that 2010 was the year that concert attendance dropped, and 2011 is the year that ticket prices will drop to try to keep up.

Someone doesn't understand the difference between aggregate data and individual results. The point that Techdirt has raised time and time again is that individuals can do better off than they would have otherwise by following these models.

The fact that some of the highest level concerts have hit their peak really has no impact at all on the vast, vast majority of musicians who make their living elsewhere.

> What you aren't getting is that failing buisnesses just don't have that type of money. If they are firing employees by the dozens and shutting down their businesses, where would they find millions to fund "powerful lobbying efforts".

Did you not read? Karl gave specific numbers which support both of those things. You can still have a lot of money for lobbying, while your revenue is dropping.

"Either they are broke and failing, or wealthy and powerful."

No. There's a pretty big segment in between those two things. Kinda insane that you can't see that. Are you really that stupid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 1:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
> The problem is simple: There isn't enough market to support that many acts doing that many concerts at that price level. They are running out of suckers to overpay for concert tickets, because that is what is paying for the rest of the business model.

So the answer was getting suckers to overpay for pieces of plastic with 12 songs on them?

There's a winning solution.

I can't believe that you think the "old" model is better, when it was much more about getting people to massively overpay.

But, of course, our idiot AC doesn't even know what he's talking about. The fact that the very high end of the concert market found its price ceiling does not mean the concert business is collapsing. It just means after years of having the prices too low, they found the ceiling. And now they adjust. That's it.

> The results? Income per artists aren't going up. Income remains the same (see the British reports for an understanding that total music business income is pretty flat for 10 years) but more than twice as many people are trying to get a piece of the pie. As an independent artist, you are having to fight even harder to pay your bar tab, let alone make a living.

That's not what the British report actually said. Learn some basic stats, before you make yourself out to be an even bigger fool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
So close! You almost got it, but you still fail. They aren't the only way to make money from music, but none of the other business models out there are really adding up to a hill of beans compared to it. As for "other parts", consider that 2010 was the year that concert attendance dropped, and 2011 is the year that ticket prices will drop to try to keep up.

Hmmm...just the other day a game bundle sold 1.8 million and surprise the producers promised to give the source code and everyone was allowed to choose the price. Is that peanuts?

Content producers on YouTube are making 6 figures is that peanuts?

Fine don't go make money then.

So don't try to make it as if the rest of the music industry as a whole isn't suffering as well... they are!

That is just plain dishonest, people pointed out already why that is irrelavant and you keep trying to say that piracy is somehow responsible for tickets prices on live shows are you retarded?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 2:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
If they are truly dying, all the lobbying in the world won't help, and they shouldn't be able to afford it anyway. So where are we really?

EMI did not file for chapter 11?
Did the labels not spent millions in donations through various umbrella fronts to political parties?

So we have a situation where labels are still making billions, but falling and failing in some cases and are still spending a lot of money lobbying which makes you look dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 3:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
This is rather clearly false. Even if you make net nothing from your label contract, you still made a ton. You got recording made, you got product out there, you got publicity, support, and at least partial tour support up front. All of that isn't nothing.

Well that can be said about piracy too, if you give it away everything for free you got publicity, you got exposure, you got songs made and distributed that will support the touring part and the merch part so pirates actually help there.

The kickback is most clearly about high ticket prices, high fees, and so on. What has happened is simple: Piracy is hurting one part of the business, and everyone (including TD) has said that they can make it up by selling the scarce, which includes concert tickets. Ticket prices went up, the number of concerts went up, and surprise, ticket sales tanked.

The problem is simple: There isn't enough market to support that many acts doing that many concerts at that price level. They are running out of suckers to overpay for concert tickets, because that is what is paying for the rest of the business model. It is a clear failure of proportioning of costs, where recorded music sales would cost fans a small amount each, concert ticket sales are hitting a smaller group much harder. As soon as they figure out they shouldn't pay, or they run out of money to pay, the model entirely collapses.

Your BS is incredible dude.
If there is not enough market, piracy or no piracy there wouldn't be any more sales either way because there is no market.

Maybe you think that one person or band making 200 million dollars in profits is not enough, but I know plenty of people who wouldn't mind.

Are you saying that we all should be sad because Bono will not be able to buy a island anymore and instead he will need to settle for a mansion somewhere?

There is more money total, but there are more people fighting for it, and more people thinking they have a chance in this new music economy. The results? Income per artists aren't going up. Income remains the same (see the British reports for an understanding that total music business income is pretty flat for 10 years) but more than twice as many people are trying to get a piece of the pie. As an independent artist, you are having to fight even harder to pay your bar tab, let alone make a living.

And that is a piracy problem how?
If more people are making money and not just 10% that is all good on my book, if the top 100 can't afford a jet this summer that is cool since that means the other 90% are getting more money and probably be happy to pay for food.

See I can make up scenarios too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
Oh BTW ask Bozo Bono to extend your pocket with his act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 3:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
There is more money total, but there are more people fighting for it, and more people thinking they have a chance in this new music economy.

You hit the nail on the head there - but strangely you don't realise it.

The fact is that making your living from music is a dream for many more people than will ever have a chance of succeeding. The internet has lowered entry barriers and so a bigger proportion of those people than ever before are trying their hand. That is the real reason why the majority of of musicians struggle and it has nothing whatsoever to do with piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 3:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
This is rather clearly false. Even if you make net nothing from your label contract, you still made a ton.

We were talking very specifically about monetary income. If you want to talk about non-monetary compensation, that's a little more nebulous.

You can claim that even though you didn't make any money, you got more intangible benefits (such as publicity). Now, just try running that by a label. "By putting your music on my blog, you made a ton in publicity." "Fuck your publicity, pay us or we'll have you arrested!"

Can't have it both ways.

You got recording made, you got product out there, you got publicity, support, and at least partial tour support up front. All of that isn't nothing.

There are three problems with this attitude:

1. You didn't "get" any of this, you were loaned it. All of this is paid back from the artists' share, not the label's share. The label's share is usually about five times that of the artists. So, by the time the artists gets a single penny, the label has already made back five times as much as it spent.

2. "You" didn't get the recording or "product" in any case. It's not "your" record, it's the label's, and you don't own the rights to it any more than I do. With the latest 360 deals, "you" don't get most of the profits from your tour or merch, either.

3. For most bands, none of this is under their control. They don't get veto power over promotion, they don't get to choose the studio or producer, etc. (Sometimes, like with Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians, they don't even get to choose their band members.)

Does this mean that major labels have nothing to offer? No, of course not. It's just that as time goes by, what they have to offer is less and less of a good deal.

The kickback is most clearly about high ticket prices, high fees, and so on.

These are the same reasons why nobody buys CD's anymore. Funny how nobody in the industry will admit that.

What has happened is simple: Piracy is hurting one part of the business,

The only part of the buisness that has fallen consistently has been CD sales. (For example, 2009 had the highest number of music purchases in history - they just weren't CD purchases.) It has never been shown that the lack of CD sales is due to piracy, or conversely that halting piracy would result in any more sales.

and everyone (including TD) has said that they can make it up by selling the scarce, which includes concert tickets.

What Techdirt has said is that for better or worse, the music itself is no longer scarce (like it was when you needed a physical format to play it). So in order to make money, you need to find something else that's scarce to sell. Nobody said it was guaranteed to "make up the difference" from CD sales (though again, most musicians made nothing from CD sales, so you could hardly do worse).

There is more money total, but there are more people fighting for it, and more people thinking they have a chance in this new music economy. The results? Income per artists aren't going up.

That's a side effect of the democratization of the market. The easier it is for you to have the opportunity to make money, the easier it is for everyone else, too. That means the supply side grows faster than the demand side. That's bad for artists' incomes overall, but great for the fans - and great for the overall music scene, too.

Them's the breaks. Nobody is guaranteed a living - we're not commies. And making money from music was always a long shot at best.

Even so, the opportunity to make a living is greater than ever. There's less money per artist, but the chances of being one of the very few who earn a living is better. And at least now, if you do earn money, you don't need middlemen who will take 90% of your income.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 3:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Someone doesn't understand the difference between aggregate data and individual results. The point that Techdirt has raised time and time again is that individuals can do better off than they would have otherwise by following these models.

In the end, it always boils down to the same things. Encourage people to pillage and plunder the existing music industry, pirate their material, and try to wipe out their business. The only reason? So that individual small acts can afford to trade their draft beer for a mixed drink when they are playing at the local club.

For the rare exceptional success cases in music (the sainted cory smith, as an example), there are millions of pirated copies made and sales lost. Oh yes, the sales are lost, people learn not to spend, learn not to buy. You will say "they had no intention of buying" and that is the point: They had no intention because they have learned not to buy.

The trade off is literally stepping over dollars to pick up pennies, only desirable because the people picking up the pennies felt they would never have a chance at dollars.

As for Live Nation, I notice you carefully selected the story. You might want to try:

http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?company=live+nation&edition=techdirt

First one is a story about Live Nation annoying people, conflicts of interest, etc. The 3 year old speculative story you point to has sort of been trumped by reality. But you knew that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
herodotus (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 4:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
"In the end, it always boils down to the same things. Encourage people to pillage and plunder the existing music industry, pirate their material, and try to wipe out their business. The only reason? So that individual small acts can afford to trade their draft beer for a mixed drink when they are playing at the local club.

For the rare exceptional success cases in music (the sainted cory smith, as an example), there are millions of pirated copies made and sales lost. Oh yes, the sales are lost, people learn not to spend, learn not to buy. You will say "they had no intention of buying" and that is the point: They had no intention because they have learned not to buy."

So hordes of pirates are killing the music industry, I get it.

My question is, why is this death taking so damn long?

I'm sure this is an apocalyptic horror story from the standpoint of Edgar Bronfman Jr, but from my standpoint it's that Christmas wish that never quite comes true.

I mean, die already. The music industry, has been exploiting the art of music for well over a century, and it no longer serves any useful purpose to anyone with musical interests above a sixth grade level.

How can we miss you if you won't go away?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 5:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are not attacking their customers, they are attacking people who are willing to take their product illegally [...] their customers are the ones who legally use their product. The ones who are willing to pay for something they want.

Those people are one and the same. And you know it, because I've explained it to you before. In case you forgot, here are some studies that prove you're lying:
Study: File sharing boosts music sales
Gov't Commissioned Study Finds P2P Downloaders Buy More Music
Study: P2P users buy more music; apathy, not piracy, the problem
Study finds file-sharers buy ten times more music

But let's say you don't believe in evidence. Only three situations are even theoretically possible:

1. Pirates buy more music. If that's true (and it is), then by attacking them, you're attacking your best consumers.
2. Pirates would buy music if they couldn't download it. If that's true, then attacking the pirates guarantees that they won't buy music. They'll be bankrupt from being sued, kicked off the internet due to "three strikes" laws, in jail for "criminal infringement," etc. Even if they escape punishment, they'll intentionally avoid giving you money.
3. Pirates aren't willing to pay for music in any case. If that's true, then even if they do get the music for free, you won't have "lost" a sale in any case, and preventing them from listening won't put a single dime in your pocket.

Notice something? You gain money in exactly zero of these cases. But in two cases, you are guaranteed to lose money. It is not even theoretically possible to increase your sales by attacking the pirates themselves, but it is likely you will lose sales.

That's not even considering the money you'll spend on legal fees that you'll never get back, or the horrific publicity that your business will suffer. It does not consider the harm to society you'll do by passing draconian anti-piracy laws. It does not consider the ethical implications of ruining the lives of people who did nothing morally worse than sneak into a movie theater.

Nobody gains, but everyone loses. Why would anyone think that is OK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 5:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
We all know the chances of you know two such people, and having meetings with them IN A ROW, and that they during the meeting say the same thing to you, that would not be expected from someone doing well in the field ?

No, actually, we don't. Please, Darryl, express to us the statistical probability of that occurrence.

Or admit that you LIED and you don't actually know the chances of that occurring!!!!!

ADMIT IT, LIAR!!!

:P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 5:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
We all know the chances of you know two such people, and having meetings with them IN A ROW, and that they during the meeting say the same thing to you, that would not be expected from someone doing well in the field ?

No, actually, we don't. Please, Darryl, express to us the statistical probability of that occurrence.

Or admit that you LIED and you don't actually know the chances of that occurring!!!!!

ADMIT IT, LIAR!!!

:P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
coldbrew, 2 Jan 2011 @ 6:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
I'm curious as to how the Grateful Dead were able to convince their fans to buy their albums while soundboard copies of ALL their shows were being traded among all people that were interested? That doesn't seem to make sense if I were to believe what you've written.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 2 Jan 2011 @ 6:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Geee Nice try Rose, HAHAm,, but classic FAIL,, that is quite sad, I thought you were smarter than that !!!.

I guess I was wrong..

What did I lie about again Rose ?? something about statistics ?? hahaha

Sorry Rose, you just make yourself look like a petty, childish, FOOL..

I will admit to lying when I lie, when are you going to admit to being stupid ??

I got a statictical probability wrong, (so you say), and thatmeans I am a liar.

I will admit one thing, Rose,, you blew it big time, on this one.

You come acress of desperate to attack me, but with nothing to do it with..

You LOSE..

And again, If Mike is not a bald faced liar he will detail the names of the two he 'claims' to have met..

Rose M. Welch,, im sorry, but this time you have reached a new low..

I will refer to your post whenever in the future, you actually do try to make some logical sense..

I will happily throw this in your fact time and time again..

ANYONE who reads what you just said Rose, will assume, you are desperate for prove a point, but incapable of developing ANY FORM OF DESENT ARGUMENT.

(you got statistics wrong, so you LIED)..

You Rose are wrongly accusing me of being a liar, fair enought,, I am correctly accusing you of being petty, stupid, purile, and above all wrong..

The statistical probably of what Mike claims of occuring is ZERO, there I have expressed to you the statistical probablility of that occurrence..

IT IS ZERO,, that why it is a lie.

lets do some analysis..

What are the chances that Mike knows 2 people who are successsful in alternative tech content creation, and money making???

What are the chances that Mike would meet with 2 such successful people and not be willing to name them to celibrate their success.

what are the chances that he would meet these TWO different people, the rare two who make money with alternate tech content

IN A ROW..

What are the chances that the two rare people that he met with who are successful in new tech content creation and money making WOULD "sit back, laugh, and blah blah".

What are the chances of two people who are successful in new tech content creation, that Mike promotes, consider Mike to be pessimistic ?

Why would they think he was pessimistic, they are doing what make suggests and they are doing VERY WELL, That would have to make them optimistic, and would also make the view Mike as optimistic, and not pessimistic..

What are the chances that two people who are successful in a certain technique, be pessimistic, or consider someone else who supports that technique to be pessimistic ?

Again, Rose, I dont know what happend to you on this one, usually you manage to provide intelligent responses..

But this time, it appears you lost it..

I will happily admit to lying, when and IF I ever do so..

but you can spend a little time thinking about statistical probabilities.. it is quite a joke really..

Since when has mike relied on statistics to prove his case, he never does... He always used real people, real success or failure, he always names to people, and especially if they are claiming some level of success in the new tech content area.

The ONLY time, I have ever seen mike NOT do that is here, what is the statistical probability that Mike is lying, by all measures it appears to be approaching 100%..

The fact that Mike has refused to name those two, turns that probable 100% into a definate 100%.

Certainly beyond "reasonable doubt"..

And when you or mike ever use statistics to prove a point you just know that they (you) have nothing left. As most of the time you spend you're lives trying to downplay statistics, studies and so on.. thinking personal opinion and guess work is somehow better. than facts..

But if you think about statistical probabilities of that occurrence, you will see it for what it is,, bullshit..

What are the chances

That:

Mikes KNOWS TWO people in alternate tech content who are successful.

Mikes has meetings with TWO IN A ROW (if he knows of two).

During the meetings, they BOTH the person I was talking to sat back, laughed, and said "you're such an optimist about these things!"

What are the odds that someone who is successful 'in these things' would think that anyone else who supports 'these things' would also not be optimistic ?

What would be the statistical probability of that occuring Rose ?

A billion to 1, a million to 1, ???

Why would even one person who is making money and doing well in an alternate tech content field, that Mike promotes, consider Mike pessimistic ?

Why would TWO of them that that ??

What is the statistical probability that TWO of them that are doing well in alternative tech content believe Mike was pessimistic ?

Clearly the see mike as optimistic from the start, after all they are folling Mikes advice, so they MUST have seen the benefits of it, and not considered the potential downside.

So they would consider Mike from the start to be optimistic, it just does not make sense that they would use Mikes techniques, and make money and success and view his techniques and pessimistic !!

And if it does not sound right, it is NOT right, and Rose, if it is not right, it is what it is..

Which as I have stated, as far as anyone here can tell, it is a straight out lie..

Rose you do yourself no favors by supporting it either..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 6:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
http://www.livephish.com/packages/2,45/Phish-mp3-flac-download-MSG-Webcast-Pay-Per-View.html

Phis h seems to be making money streaming their live concerts over the internet.

But they're only making "pennies" so I guess they don't count.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 7:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
Yes, but in the end, fewer people having real success, and more people barely hanging on to a dream at best. It is a simple issue really, if you have a pizza and split it between two people, you each get a decent meal. Split it with 100 people, and you are lucky to get a piece of crust. If you think it is an improvement to have 100 people fighting over who gets to eat the box the pizza came in, then you are right.

Realistically, the whole internet give your music away thing has just made people think that they are better than they are. We aren't getting tons more great music, if anything, we have less. We have more music, but less of it is above what most of us would sing in the shower.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 7:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
In reply to both of you, the answer is always the same: "exceptional case".

The Grateful Dead ended up with a very small but very dedicated fan base who traveled everywhere the band went, sold food, tie dye shirts, and lots of drugs so they could afford to buy tickets to the show. In some cases, upwards to 20% of the audience were these transient people. If you ever experienced the camper / love bus hordes that would decend on town for their shows, you would understand.

Phish is one of those rare acts where their recorded music isn't worth anywhere near as much as the experience of seeing them live. The last one in that category would have been Frank Zappa. You get about 1 or 2 of those a generation, it seems.

Now, you ignored a case like Metallica, mostly because most people hate them. They use to allow fans to record all their shows, and would even sell special tickets with space for fans to set up their recording gear, often with power and everything. That didn't stop them from selling tons and tons of their original albums.

In all three cases, these are exceptional situations, ones that cannot be willfully copied for any great benefit. Understanding that they are exceptional makes it easier to understand why they aren't business models that can be widely used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 7:53pm

Re: Reaction to innovation is negativity
All that it means is that you agree with the agenda, so you don't object.

It is the same reason some people can watch Faux News, and others can't, or why some people can check out Huffington post or Drudge.

If you pay attention, there is a very strict agenda on TD. Much of it is centered on creating certain truths out of whole cloth or by intentionally misreading date. Falsely attributing things to groups is another classic here.

Turn on your critical reading skills, if you find yourself nodding your head too much, it means you aren't thinking for yourself!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 7:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
So that is not a piracy problem really is it?

BTW if more people make a living more people have money, more people spend and growth happens, on your world though just a few have money and just a few spend and there is no growth possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 7:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Really?

Ask the top 100 artists on Jamendo if they are sad by giving away their music for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 8:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
Art is subjective? Holy shit, I think I've nipped this one in the bud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 8:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Isn't art supposed to be exceptional?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 8:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Liar, liar, pants on fire . . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 8:26pm

Re: Re: Reaction to innovation is negativity
It's like looking in a mirror!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 9:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry Rose, you just make yourself look like a petty, childish, FOOL..

Holy shit, this is classic.

Should we even be debating Darryl anymore? It's like winning a footrace against a guy with no legs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 9:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's something really fun about playing this game of debunking Darryl. Hard to resist.

And again, If Mike is not a bald faced liar he will detail the names of the two he 'claims' to have met..

Darryl, this has already been explained to you multiple times. You don't get to set such conditions. The meetings happened. I won't name them because I have integrity and I don't name the people I meet with in private. Are you saying that you do violate the privacy of people you meet with? That's about the only conclusion I can come to based on your statements.

The statistical probably of what Mike claims of occuring is ZERO, there I have expressed to you the statistical probablility of that occurrence..

No, Darryl, the statistical probability of an event that already happened is one. You should know that.

IT IS ZERO,, that why it is a lie.

Again, as already explained to you, it is one, not zero. Your insistence otherwise is why everyone else on this thread is making fun of you.

lets do some analysis..

Yes, lets (sic).

What are the chances that Mike knows 2 people who are successsful in alternative tech content creation, and money making???

Uh, pretty damn high. I know a lot more than two people who are quite successful making money with alternative business models.

Also, not sure why you tossed in a "tech content creation." No one said anything about "tech content." Why would you make that up? I'd accuse you of lying, but how would that move the conversation forward? Instead, I'll just ask, why did you add in the word "tech" when I never said anything about it being tech content?

What are the chances that Mike would meet with 2 such successful people and not be willing to name them to celibrate their success.

Easy: the probability is 1. Again, I meet with successful people all the time and do not name them. Often it's because they're seeking my advice, not for me to talk about what they're doing.

what are the chances that he would meet these TWO different people, the rare two who make money with alternate tech content

Again. It's got nothing to do with "tech" content. Why make that up? But, the chances that I would meet with two successful content creators is again, one. I do it all the time. Why do you think I would not?

IN A ROW..

I will often bunch up meetings in a row to be more productive. Why is that so surprising that you switch to capital letters? These particular meetings happened while I was traveling, so of course I tried to bunch the meetings up for the purpose of efficiency.

What are the chances that the two rare people that he met with who are successful in new tech content creation and money making WOULD "sit back, laugh, and blah blah".

Once again, it has nothing to do with tech content creation, and once again, the probability is one, because we're talking about a past event that did happen. And people who are successfully using new business models aren't rare, Darryl. They're all over the place. And, why is it so surprising that they would say what they said? As I already explained, in both cases, we were discussing future plans and strategies.

What are the chances of two people who are successful in new tech content creation, that Mike promotes, consider Mike to be pessimistic ?

Now, this is odd, because I already responded to this one, and pointed out that no one said anything about them considering or expecting me to be pessimistic. You made that up. And I already called you on it. For you to repeat something that has already been explained to you as being wrong, is odd. Perhaps not a "lie" but certainly something very close to it.

Why would they think he was pessimistic, they are doing what make suggests and they are doing VERY WELL, That would have to make them optimistic, and would also make the view Mike as optimistic, and not pessimistic..

Again, no one said they thought I'd be pessimistic. I believe what happened in both cases is that they were surprised at my optimism about specific things that we were discussing. As already explained (again, you ignoring this is odd, and seems to border on you being deliberately deceitful), in one case, we were discussing an internet based project, and the person was worried about having to spend time dealing with idiots being stupid online. And I said (in that particular situation), I didn't think it would be that big of a problem in the long run.

What are the chances that two people who are successful in a certain technique, be pessimistic, or consider someone else who supports that technique to be pessimistic ?

Again, you're simply making up the pessimistic part, so that sorta kills your credibility, doesn't it?

I will happily admit to lying, when and IF I ever do so..

Well, okay then. Here's a lie that Darryl told and which I called him on. It's a small lie, but a lie nonetheless. I called you on it, Darryl, and you did not admit to it, happily or otherwise. It started with you insisting that I had gotten something wrong, specifically on this post:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/22185211787/forget-information-overload-what-if-t he-real-problem-is-information-underload.shtml

You claimed that the photograph, contrary to the claims of the person I was quoting, was a modern photograph, not one from 100 years ago. That was wrong. I pointed you to the Library of Congress website, from which it came, where it clearly notes that the photograph is about 100 years old.

That part isn't a lie. Just you looking clueless.

The lie was later. After you ignored me proving you wrong on that thread, I mentioned it in another thread, and your response was to *lie* about what you had said. In fact, after first claiming that (as you do here) that you would not lie, and if you did, you'd admit it:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/03020511984/how-do-you-measure-benefits-copyright.s html#c2157

You *lied* and said that what you stated in the original comment was "I said In my opinion that photo looks like a modern photo of an amish community."

But the reality was you said no such thing. I pointed out your original quote that makes no "in my opinion" comment, but quite clearly, without doubt, claims the photograph was not modern. The original comment was: "Wrong, That would be a modern photopraph, taken of an Amish community. sorry, but this is certainly not an early twentieth century picture.. "

So your claim that you had said "in your opinion" was a lie. You never said such a thing, and the proof is in the record on the post, which was public for all to see.

Not surprisingly, Darryl (as he always does when proven wrong) disappeared, and never lived up to his promise to admit it when he lied.

Anyway, I'm clearly wasting enough time on this. Darryl, once again, happy new year to you. Try not to lie so much, and perhaps learn a little about probability. I did not lie in this post at all. The statement is 100% true and accurate.

I hope that, going forward, you'll be a little more careful in making blatantly false allegations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 10:02pm

Re: If this really happened, Mike would name those who said it..
Darryl... are you okay? Calm down man.

This was just a simple happy new year post, espousing some general thoughts and feelings at the end of 2010... the story about the two people was a quick anecdote there to demonstrate the source of some of the ideas. How are you possibly this upset about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 11:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
Of course it is, I love punk music do you like that?

What is great for some is crap for others dude.

People celebrate Van Gogh I think he was crap.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The only fact that is on the table is that you depend on people, you create a fantasy and sell that, once you start shiting on that fantasy, that no longer appeals to people.

No one will pay you for being an a-hole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 11:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Short Version:

I'm right you are wrong, bla bla bla.

That is all darryl said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2011 @ 11:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Exceptionally boring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Jan 2011 @ 11:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Wow, most of these have been addressed anyway, but I love the fact that you constantly attack me for "not getting it" while never offering anything other than half-assed accusations and unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps if you and your ilk were better at explaining these things?

"You would think that considering Amanda Palmer's opinions of record labels, that she wouldn't want to deal with the devil again."

Palmer's personal opinions of record labels are really none of my business, and I don't know the ins and outs of her contract with LN. The real questions are these: were her experiences with LN positive, and did they allow a level of exposure and success that were more positive than she would have had under the old models?

"As for "other parts", consider that 2010 was the year that concert attendance dropped, and 2011 is the year that ticket prices will drop to try to keep up."

First of all, "other parts" comprises of a hell of a lot more than mere live concerts. Not my problem if you haven't got the imagination to realise that.

As for the rest of your comment, I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere - this is not necessarily a problem. Concert attendance has largely dropped due to inflated ticket prices anyway, and even then only for US tours from the top 50 artists IIRC. Artists having to - gasp! - *lower* their prices to what the market can bear is just as likely to be an indication that prices were too high, rather than any fundamental underlying problem, and they're happening during the biggest worldwide recession for a century. Plus, again, the figures I've seen tend to only focus on the top 50 tours, are smaller artists having the same problems, or only those who charge over $100 per ticket? Do you have a link for those figures if so, they would make interesting reading.

"Either they are broke and failing, or wealthy and powerful."

Please, stop making basic logical fallacies when trying to "educate" me, it just makes you look foolish.

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

"If they are truly dying, all the lobbying in the world won't help, and they shouldn't be able to afford it anyway. So where are we really?"

I'll try to explain this once more... Their business model is no longer workable in the 21st century. The writing is on the wall, and has been there for more than a decade.

However, they are also parts of massively wealthy businesses, which are themselves parts of massively wealthy corporations. At the moment, they are still able to piss away tens of millions of dollars on lobbyists and millions more on other activities because they currently have the capital and/or credit available to do so. This will not last, as EMI's situation proves.

Eventually, they will fail. Unless they change their methods of doing business, the results of their lobbying will not matter - they are as doomed if laws stay the same as they are now, as they are if they manage to get everybody suspected of piracy locked up and cut off from the internet.

As for where we are now, we're in a shaky position. While they're making such desperate moves to stop themselves from failing (and by that, they mean "get things back to where they were in the mid-90s", without addressing the cultural and business changes that have happened in the meantime), they still have the power to get dangerous laws passed. Three strikes, ISP snooping, seizure of domain names, "treaties" to enforce US copyright laws on the rest of the planet - these can only have negative consequences and may make things worse for industry, not better.

That's why these conversations are often so frustrating. I'm a paying customer, just one who's very tired of jumping through the artificial hoops placed between me and the content I wish to access by the industry. I'm also extremely wary of legal changes made to benefit industry, especially when made to protect a business model with no future. But, if I try to explain this, I'm a "pirate" and "wrong". No wonder the industry is failing when customers are attacked and ignored like that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 12:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Darryl, I think you should call your sponsor... You don't have to face this alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 1:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ANYONE who reads what you just said Rose, will assume, you are desperate for prove a point, but incapable of developing ANY FORM OF DESENT ARGUMENT.

Roflmao! This is awesome! 2011 is already better than 2010 was, just for this! (Also because 2010 sucked, but whatever.)

Darryl, what you missed is that my post was mimicking your style of writing. So... everything you just said? Yeah, take it to heart, man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 5:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Actually, the 1.8 million for the game bundle is for the whole bundle. Once broken down, they are only looking at a couple of hundred thousand each. It is still better than having all your work pirated, but won't pay the bills for them to make another great product.

That is just plain dishonest, people pointed out already why that is irrelavant and you keep trying to say that piracy is somehow responsible for tickets prices on live shows are you retarded?

Cause and effect: If the artists, artist management, and all the other players behind the scenes aren't making income through record sales, they make the money up somewhere else. No, it isn't all of the ticket price, but it is one of those things that has contributed to signficant ticket price increased.

I suspect if you could get the right data to graph things out, you would see that piracy and ticket prices have pretty much increased hand in hand. In the 10 years since Napster arrived, ticket prices have skyrocketed. It is also partly as a result of more and more 360 deals, where parts of the music industry that were depending on record sales are now profiting from concert ticket sales.

Retarded is just not looking past the end of your nose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 6:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Retarded is not understanding the ecosystem of human culture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 6:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Once again, you failed because you start out not wanting to understand anything.

The music industry, in simple terms, is broken into a very few parts: recorded music sales, live music sales, licensing, and merchandise. Is there any "other" that I missed? Live music sales and merchandise sales are often linked, as the best time to sell stuff to people tends to be when they are at your shows. "fans" will overpay significantly for an exclusive tour t-shirt, which has been produced in a million copies.

2010 was the year that concerts were cancelled, tours went bust, people grumbled about ticket prices, and (shocking for some here) recorded music sales increased.

I will let you draw you own conclusions.

I'll try to explain this once more... Their business model is no longer workable in the 21st century. The writing is on the wall, and has been there for more than a decade.

How many other industries will generate 27 billion dollars in a year? Sure, it is lower than it was, but holy crap! We are all getting excited that some middleman internet site has paid out 150 million in it's existance, and that is some sort of shining success, and 27 billion a year is some sort of failure.

Their business model is entirely workable, if it wasn't for rampant piracy. You still want the music, you still desire it, you still load it into your Ipod, you just don't feel compelled to pay for it.

As for the "hoops" they make you jump through, would you care to explain? Buy the CD, rip it to your Ipod, have a nice day. How hard is that? Oh wait, there is that one loophole, the one where you have to pay. I know, you don't want to jump too high.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 6:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
"Actually, the 1.8 million for the game bundle is for the whole bundle. Once broken down, they are only looking at a couple of hundred thousand each. It is still better than having all your work pirated, but won't pay the bills for them to make another great product."

Want to provide a cite for you own claims? The only game in the package I'm aware of where the budget has been revealed is Braid, which used a budget of $200k (http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/3266/gdc09-jonathon-blow-reveals-braids-budget/) - much of which Blow says was not 100% necessary, and he was working on his next project before the bundle was released. Remember, most of these games have been on sale outside of the bundle and so their income from that does not reflect their total income (especially with Braid).

There's also the flipside of the story - how many of the people who paid $20 or whatever for the bundle as a whole would have paid for the games separately? Not pirated them, just simply not bothered at full retail price? Funny how that side of the equation never features into calculations from industry people...

"If the artists, artist management, and all the other players behind the scenes aren't making income through record sales, they make the money up somewhere else."

The elephant in the room is that not all of those people are necessary any more. I know what you're saying, but just as Hollywood needs to realise that large chunks of their $250 million budgets aren't necessary, some of the people employed by the music industry aren't needed. When they've stopped looking for ways to rip off paying customers, they'll need to streamline their own operations, just like every non-entertainment industry needs to when they can't just blame inefficiencies on "piracy".

"I suspect if you could get the right data to graph things out, you would see that piracy and ticket prices have pretty much increased hand in hand"

Correlation != causation.

I suspect if you used the same graph to chart DVD sales, videogame sales, smartphone sales and even hybrid car sales over the last decade instead of piracy, you'd see the same trend. Doesn't mean any of them are directly responsible for "losses"

"Retarded is just not looking past the end of your nose."

...and you just couldn't resist throwing a stupid insult in at the end. Classy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 6:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
"Once again, you failed because you start out not wanting to understand anything."

Once again, straight in with the personal attack. Glancing down, I notice you still refuse to offer any citations for your data, only easily refuted opinions.

"2010 was the year that concerts were cancelled, tours went bust, people grumbled about ticket prices, and (shocking for some here) recorded music sales increased."

You're conflating your data, as ever, and making some blind assumptions. Some concerts were cancelled (especially overpriced ones from "big names"), but many more went ahead, especially among independents. I'll ask again - do you have any data that doesn't just look at the top 50 artists in the US market, 'cause I haven't seen anything concrete.

People "grumbled about ticket prices" because we're in the middle of a worldwide recession and people can't afford $200 to go and see an 80s band on a revival tour or an gimmick tour (American Idol, etc.). Oh, and now you admit sales increased? I thought you were claiming that high ticket prices were needed to offset "losses" from "piracy"? Admittedly, I have seen such figures from the UK market, but what does that have to do with US tours being cancelled?

"Their business model is entirely workable, if it wasn't for rampant piracy. You still want the music, you still desire it, you still load it into your Ipod, you just don't feel compelled to pay for it."

...and despite my many explanations and cites about how I do no such thing, this moron still accuses me of being a "pirate" because his tiny little mind cannot fathom any other reason for criticising his beloved industry. F**king typical...

"As for the "hoops" they make you jump through, would you care to explain? Buy the CD, rip it to your Ipod, have a nice day. How hard is that?"

I was talking about the entertainment industry as a whole, but since you asked...

- I don't want to buy CDs! They're bulky, wasteful and will just sit around in a box collecting dust after I've ripped it (unless I sell it, in which case I'm a "pirate" if I forget to delete the ripped tracks.
- I'm blocked from downloading some tracks from albums because they're "exclusive" to some stores or retailers I cannot access.
- I'm not legally allowed to buy from 90% of the digital stores out there due to regional restrictions.
- DRM prevents me from playing some legally purchased items I already own.
- I'm not allowed to buy certain games through XBLA, again due to regional restrictions (and there's no legal alternative way to buy them!)
- I'm blocked from playing some legally purchased DVD on my main DVD playback equipment at home (again, DRM/region coding).
- Some games are blocked from me on other consoles, due to regionalisation, but they will never be released in my home country.
- I cannot access ANY movie streaming service legally AFAIK, even if I wish to pay for it, except for filmamora.com (which has a total of 63 movies available).

That's just for starters. Every single time I try to access some form of legal entertainment, there's some artificial block in my way, and I'm goddamn tired of it, especially when I get morons telling me I'm a "pirate" for trying to use legal methods. Get it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
amazing, yes, blame it on the major content providers for dragging their feet on a new scheme that is supposed to put them out of business !!!

that's called the innovator's dilemma: do i cannibalize my own business now to stay ahead of changes in the market, or do i continue to do what is profitable now and risk being pushed out of the market by a new innovation.

one answer to the innovator's dilemma is that it's always better to be the first mover.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Irate Pirate, 3 Jan 2011 @ 9:42am

That was insane!
Have you ever seen one of those spastic, foot stomping, whining, screaming, children that the parent has to keep on a leash and harness at all times? That is what immediately sprang to mind when coming across all the comments by Darryl. Mike must have the patience of a saint. I would have drop kicked Feral Darryl a long time ago. Hmm, does that make me a bad person?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
I suspect if you used the same graph to chart DVD sales, videogame sales, smartphone sales and even hybrid car sales over the last decade instead of piracy, you'd see the same trend.

I actually did something like this, kind of.

I was looking at the impact of "substitute competition" on CD sales. That is, competition for consumer dollars not from music, but from other media (DVD's, video games, etc).

The first graph I made is here:
CD's vs. Video Media

Note that as video purchases increase, CD sales decrease. Note also that the pre-2003 trend for CD sales roughly follows the trend for VHS sales - which makes sense, since consumer CD technology is now almost as old as consumer VHS tape.

Also interesting is that after an initial decline from 1999-2003, CD sales actually rebounded from 2003-2005. Certainly, music piracy did not decrease in these years, so there must be some other reason for the increase - especially since video media sales continued to grow. I suspect it's because they followed the trend for median household income.

Zeropaid did something similar, which included video games as well as DVD sales and DVD rentals. The graph is in this article:
Music Sale Losses Due to Gaming, DVDs, Not P2P

By the way - I've been trying to find someone that has reliable statistics for the amount of piracy, expressed in downloads per year. I haven't been able to find it. If anyone here knows how I can find that out, I'd be grateful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
We agree on that, that is exactly why I asked if you were retarded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with TD is just this
Thanks for the reply, and yes I'd like to see some figures that prove the claims being made as well.

Nothing I've seen has ever proven anything other than "the music industry has competition that didn't exist 20 years ago". Yes, that includes P2P (though not piracy as a whole", but there's so much more, and many opportunities for the musicians themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 5 Jan 2011 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another cite
Artists get an advance when they sign to a label. To record with, buy new instruments, and live on. They get royalties once the advance is paid off. If the band fails, the label eats that loan, and the band is dropped.

Of course, that fact is something you would never hear about on a piracy blog like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2016 @ 1:12am

Five years later... darryl is nowhere to be seen, and Techdirt is still here. I like to think he died of autoerotic self-asphyxiation around average_joe's lower length. Sadly it's likelier that nature ran its course and found a much less fitting, but no less hilarious method for him to snuff out his waste of a trollish existence. Probably involving solar panels in an attempt to relive the glory days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]