A Problem Worse Than Piracy? The Ridiculous Structure Of Online Music Licensing Deals

from the can't-make-money-this-way dept

Tue, Dec 13th 2011 5:11am — Mike Masnick

We've pointed out many, many times in the past that the absolute best (and perhaps only) way to really get people to move away from infringing is to offer better, cheaper, more convenient and feature-filled legitimate services. But those are pretty difficult to come by -- in part because of the insane demands by the legacy entertainment industry players. Why do you think it took over two years for Spotify to finally come to the US? Because the labels demands were crazy and unsustainable. Michael Robertson is now revealing some of those demands, but sums it up best in his first paragraph:

Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture. Let�s also say there�s only one supplier to purchase hot dogs from. Instead of simply charging a fixed price for hot dogs, that supplier demands the HIGHER of the following: $1 per hot dog sold OR $2 for every customer served OR 50 percent of all revenues for anything sold in the store. In addition, the supplier requires a two-year minimum order of 300 hot dogs per day, payable all in advance. If fewer hot dogs are sold, there is no refund. If more than 300 hot dogs are sold each day, payments to the supplier are generated by calculating $2 per customer or 50 percent of total revenues, so an additional payment is due to the supplier. After the first two years, the supplier can unilaterally adjust any of the pricing terms and the shop can never switch suppliers.

Doesn't seem like a particularly good business. When you hear of deals like that, it's kind of amazing that any of these businesses exist at all.

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: business, licensing, music, piracy
Companies: spotify

88 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:26am

Another misleading and incorrect story.

First off, "For the first time, people are talking" is a great line for saying "we aren't going to name sources", which is a nice way of saying "we made this up".

Second, we are talking tenths and hundreds of cents here, not dollars. Further, unlike the "hot dog" example he gives, it is not unusual for people to sit down for tens or even hundreds of songs. So rather than having a "one price per song", there are different ways to calculate things based on actual usage. No doubt if the deals were $0.0X per song, period, you guys would be bitching that it's too expensive that way too.

Finally:

"Final note: Online radio services such as Pandora take advantage of a government-supervised license available only to radio broadcasters thus sidestepping dealing with record labels. While the per-song fees are daunting, they bypass virtually all of the terms listed above."

Clearly, there are other options and other ways to do business. This reads like some serious whining from people who don't understand business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:27am

Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
SOPA/PIPA demands a response from the people.And for this post it should prove that for us Artists out here you should not be signing your life away by going near a MAFIAA Contract.
Keep your freedom and stay away from selling out.You will be screwed over if you do sell out.
The People's Response
No Theater Going
No buying new products
Cancel your Netflix,Itunes,Amazon,etc online video
Buy only used physical products
Support any NON-MAFIAA Films/Music
We must really hit the whole Industry with our wallets.Cash is all these asses understand and we must fight back.That is what it is to be in a War.Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.And believe me they have declared War on us.
Let the War begin and spread the word.We must all boycott and get our friends/family to join in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:30am

Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
Please do. Just stop downloading and enjoying the content too, otherwise you look like an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:42am

Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
"Just stop downloading and enjoying the content too, otherwise you look like an idiot."

No, I tried that. Drooling morons such as yourself called me a pirate anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FuzzyDuck, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:42am

Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
I agree, every penny the MAFIAA gets from us it will use to undermine our civil liberties. We need to destroy them before they destroy our freedoms. The best way to win is to starve them of money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:43am

Re:
"First off, "For the first time, people are talking" is a great line for saying "we aren't going to name sources", which is a nice way of saying "we made this up"."

Ah, "I don't like what this says so I'll assume it's a lie". Classic.

"Second, we are talking tenths and hundreds of cents here, not dollars."

So?

"Clearly, there are other options and other ways to do business. This reads like some serious whining from people who don't understand business."

You mean like corporations who refuse to service the demands of their market, then whine when business goes elsewhere?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:43am

Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
Nope, I made it my lifes work to rip the labels, studios and publishers off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:45am

Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
Agreed. Please clearly mark your content instead of assuming that it encompasses all music and video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The dude, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:45am

Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
Why should he stop?, if he keeps downloading he gives the industry shills a reason to whine about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:50am

Re:
Sorry, you haven't named your sources. I'm just going to have to assume you're a lying buffoon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:52am

Re:
When people start asking why are they paying for music when they go to a store, dine, exercise and can't download anything, it will get uggly.

When people start asking why they need to pay levies for recording media and can't download anything things will get ugly.

And that is in the US, everybody who bought an HDD pay a levy, where those that money go?

The public is made to pay for content in every sneaky way possible and is called freeloaders when they try to enjoy it a bit more, that doesn't seem like any bargain to me.

Musicians that play in bars that should be entertaining others can't because venue owners don't want the trouble of dealing with collection agencies.

People who want to build a business around music can't without having to deal with collection agencies and the very high risks of doing business with a labels, studios and publishers.

Not to mention the extreme lenghts that copyrights today achieved, life + 95 years is not protection is welfare, at it only serve one real purpose and that is to take away options forcing people to use one channel, after they have paid over and over and over again for the same thing, every work done if it is not paid in the first year is considered a failure, but it doesn't get freed as a resource to others it gets locked away so nobody can use it for anything.

Copyright must die.
Why don't you do a favor to humanity and just walk in front of a bus?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:59am

it's just another way of trying to retain/regain the control that the entertainment industries have enjoyed for decades, but are now losing. they whine continuously about technological advances, how it's killing their 'more than ever profitable' industry and do their utmost, using all means they can, to get new laws introduced to aid in keeping that control, instead of competing with other industries, as ALL other businesses are encouraged and expected to do. it shows their desperation, how afraid they are of change but also how people are no longer interested in them having that control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:00am

Re:
Buskers lose their places to play since governments don't want to have to deal with collection agencies.
http://www.hmtk.com/archives/158-small-town-vs-ascap.html

Musicians lose jobs because of collections agencies
https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=117890234904074&topic=221&_fb_noscript=1

Lets just start with the gum analogy again, if music was gum, anyone could buy a CD and resell it, build an online radio and not have to pay no stinking content owner, but that is not what happens is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Edward Teach, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:03am

Credit where credit is due!
Mate, ye should stop being Anonymously Cowardly, and build up an on-line identity! Arr, even old swabs such as myself know that thine identity is thine credibility on-line! Ye don't add to thine argument's standing by posting anonymously all the time. Also, which Right's Holders are deservin of our tribute for reading thine drivel? Berne Convention be damned, copyright which demanded a marking be a lot easier for old salts (nay, any salt!) to figure out!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:05am

Re: Re:
"Lets just start with the gum analogy again, if music was gum, anyone could buy a CD and resell it, build an online radio and not have to pay no stinking content owner, but that is not what happens is it?"

Yeah, if they paid the full price to own the gum company.

You get all screwed up trying to match a physical product to a non-physical product. You will get it wrong every time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:05am

Re: Re:
Paul, where else is the business going, besides to illegal downloads?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:05am

Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
Why should I stop?
I already pay for it, when I go out, when I buy something from some store, even when I buy a HDD or any other recording media.

You want me to pay those people and get nothing in return?
Dream on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:06am

Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
Paul, seriously, you are so full of shit.

Stop downloading. Stop taking for free. Join the real boycott.

Try hard to live without copyrighted content. I DARE YOU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:09am

Re: Re: Re:
???

Are you saying I can't buy gum and open a candy store without having to own the gum manufacturer?

Are you mad?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re:
Also I can copy the gum recipe and there is nothing a gum company can do about it.

I should be able to cover a music and use it to my advantage and not have to pay no stinking "content owner".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: Re:
BTW tell that to the new head of the MPAA because was him that used the gum analogy, I'm just stealing his analogy :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
"Try hard to live without copyrighted content. I DARE YOU."

We can't. Everything (software, music, movies, etc.) is copyrighted BY DEFAULT. That's like asking someone to try to live in a world without atoms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:17am

Re: Re: Re:
Well if copyrights wasn't such an absurd law it could have legal business springing up all over the place, but that ain't happening with copyrights in the books, it must die first so real work can start to happen instead of this parasitic system that some believe it is their right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: Re:
Which means that, economically speaking, customers are going underserved. That's an economic loss, but not for the big labels and studios.

It's becoming ever more easy to make decent quality product in these fields - a fact that irritates the MAFIAA no end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
If you haven't noticed people are the ones daring you to enforce copyright LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
I stop ripping you off the day the levies are repealed else you are wasting my time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
Jamendo is now my favouritest toy. Yay for free (attributable) music!

VODO does the same for films, and there are good quality shorts.

I'm pretty happy with my Valve games, as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
I paid for my content...too bad I can't watch it without making sure I have an internet connection, can't watch it on any device I choose, can't watch without reminding me in ten languages that I can be criminally charged, massively fined and jailed at the start of the show and at the end, that I must pay again when the format changes...

Technology allows for customers to get what they want...for some reason industry doesn't think we deserve what is possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:23am

Re: Re: Re:
Business is up, so it's not going anywhere...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:28am

Copyright is worse than piracy.

Copyright allows "content owners" to charge people when they shop, when they go to work, on their phones, it stop little artists from having a place to earn a living, it make it easy to censor others, it is slowing down the pace of progress and business.

Copyright must die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rw (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:34am

Protection
I don't mean to appear dense, but doesn't this sound like extortion or a protection racket? Even if it is in tenths or hundredths of a dollar? We charge this amount, but it could go up if we want it to and you can still be sued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:36am

I have found a simple solution...
Copyright laws were bought and paid for by major corporations...
I am not a major corporation, therefore copyright laws do not apply to me...
simple...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
"Paul, seriously, you are so full of shit."

Yes, I forgot. An anonymous moron half a world away knows more about my entertainment preferences and buying habits than I do.

"Try hard to live without copyrighted content. I DARE YOU."

No, I can't because you insist on everything being copyrighted the moment it's made, with or without the approval of its creator. However, I can easily enjoy life without the crude, bland, homogeneous corporate crap you're trying to defend, in favour of real entertainment. I'll do so happily.

Prove otherwise, asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen Howells, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:38am

Re:
"... "we aren't going to name sources", which is a nice way of saying "we made this up". "

From the article you clearly didn't read well:

"Michael Robertson is now revealing some of those demands..."

I'd say Mike was pretty specific here. Also, if the pricing structure the record industry laid out was so great, why did it take Spotify two years to launch in the U.S.?

Since you claim this article is misleading and incorrect you must be a record executive who actually took part in those negotiations. Can you please then correct us all and share what the pricing structure proposed to Spotify was Mr. Executive?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:41am

Re: Re: Re:
Well, maybe you'd have some idea if you ever bothered to read the posts you can't merely post pithy attacks to. For example, I notice that my recent comments on this very subject went ignored:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/02283717017/hadopi-wants-to-research-file-down loads-shouldnt-it-have-done-that-first.shtml#c322

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/02283 717017/hadopi-wants-to-research-file-downloads-shouldnt-it-have-done-that-first.shtml#c451

Try addressing actual opinions instead of your own blind assumptions. You might get somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:42am

Re: Protection
And it gets worse, now copyright people want to end freedom and democracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:54am

Licensing deals aren't worse than infringement, just a contributing factor to infringement.

"If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:03am

Re: Re: Re:
"Paul, where else is the business going, besides to illegal downloads?"

You see, your mistake is assuming it can ONLY go to illegal downloads. That's completely off base. Because as we all know, there are LEGAL FREE alternatives. Spotify. Pandora. Anyone? Anyone?

So if I can hear the songs and artists I want, for free, without having to download a thing, I will. In fact, the incentive is even greater. No bad rips. No possible viruses. No being accused of being a thief/pirate (and thus the inevitable "we say you did this and have evidence, but we'd rather not take you to court, so let's just settle now for the LOW LOW free of a few grand" letters). Etc.

The free alternatives pretty much are totally the sh*t and easily (to most people) the better alternative than illegal downloads. You get the content freely and are doing so legally and legitimately.

Sorry AC, but yet again, logic fail on your part. Get past your bias and see there are other options. Oh, as for where else could the business be going. Hmm. I no longer buy cds, I attend concerts. I dislike going to the theater, but I'll go see plays. Me and my girlfriend USED to like going to the theater, but unruly and annoying people, outrageous prices, etc have had us decide our time (and money) is better spent elsewhere (bowling alleys, skating, fancy dinners at nice restaurants, etc).

Or am I a freeloader because I'd rather spend my money elsewhere? Does that count as a lost sale? Maybe we should close down bowling alleys and skating rinks and outdoor plays and concert halls/stadiums.

I'm sure you'd totally support that. But let's be realistic and not so biased. Do give it a try. It's quite fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:06am

Re:
First off, "For the first time, people are talking" is a great line for saying "we aren't going to name sources", which is a nice way of saying "we made this up".

Since you don't disclose any sources for your information are we to assume that you have also made it all up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:19am

Re:
Agreed. I put up a video I took while in World of Warcraft. Now it appears that some outfit called STV News is trying to claim copyright over MY video.

I paid for the game, I paid for the subscription to play the game, I paid for the software to convert the video I made with a computer I purchased.

And some yutz is gonna claim copyright over my video?

This is out of hand. Big time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:26am

The hotdog...
Entertainment exec..."We have a deal for you."

Venturist..."Let me guess, bend over?"

Entertainment exec..."It's the only way we'll give you the hotdog."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
I think you made his point for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:42am

MADE UP irrelevance: "Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture."
This is what i call a "proof from fiction", a favorite of old-time hucksters of the "religious" variety: craft an example that proves exactly what you wish to. -- As Mike did with his $100 million dollar movie example in the "can't compete" piece.

You can't compete with free. Why would anyone pay for a product that they can get free? -- "Free" includes morally, or rather the lack of conscience in taking someone else's work-product without permission and without paying.

Look at actual piracy, Mike. It exists, and it's HUGE.
Just stick to facts, you WEENIES.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rooben (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:46am

Re: Another Misleading Story
That's the astroturf response??? "People are talking means that they made everything up?" If that was really the case, that the information in the article is 100% made up, then why are you bothering countering any of the arguments?
Sounds like it was accurate, and you are just trying to cast doubt.

Regarding Second - of course these are pennies, not dollars. The hot dog analogy was just an example; however, even when counting pennies, there are only pennies left in profits, and when there aren't enough pennies left over to fund the business after paying the vendors, whats the point of being in business?

Finally, your last point is the most obvious. I guess you figure if you use the word "clearly" that somehow makes something clear. If you are dealing with major labels, you have two choices - take the deal outlined here, or use the compulsary licensing the government put together on behalf of the labels.

Because, "clearly" the labels work as a cartel, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO BUSINESS, if you want to have songs that people want to buy.

Now, why don't you just sit back in your cube and have another cup of coffee - we really don't want to hear your BS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:06am

Spotify doesn't have to license music from the labels. As you have said there are songs licensed under Creative Commons, there are also artists who are not signed to major labels, and those songs can be licensed directly with the artists (if said artists are the rights holders) or the indy label (if the label retained the rights to the work). So the question them becomes, why doesn't Spotify do just that, shun music from the major labels. The answer is of course that their customers demand the popular music which is owned by the major labels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
The day copyright law is repealed we will all rejoice and live without "copyrighted material".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Which means that, economically speaking, customers are going underserved. "

What it may also mean is that customers want what is not available yet, or not at the price and method it is currently available.

Piracy when the product is on the market (say the DVD is in the stores) is one thing, piracy when the product is not available is just greedy, customers wanting what is not available to them.

"It's becoming ever more easy to make decent quality product in these fields "

yet, remarkably, almost nobody is doing it, because there isn't any money in feeding the pirates - and not enough money in trying to compete with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You see, your mistake is assuming it can ONLY go to illegal downloads. That's completely off base. Because as we all know, there are LEGAL FREE alternatives. Spotify. Pandora. Anyone? Anyone? "

But you see, that isn't the issue. Those are all sites that pay for licensing, and as such, are not "free". They are perfectly legal outlets. You may not understand it, but these services are paying for the content. Moreover, they prove that online licensing deals aren't that silly, because they are working within them and running businesses.

So what you are saying is that the article itself is wrong, and these services are proof that online licensing is working.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:12am

Re: MADE UP irrelevance: "Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture."
You should check out the discussion at the Pirate Bay on the torrent for comedian Louis CK's recent release of his performance at the Beacon Theater. He released in on his website for $5, DRM free, and you've got heavy pirates (people who are on the pirate bay enough to comment) arguing that people should not torrent the performance because Louis did everything right and treated his fans like human beings instead of sales figures by:

1) Offering the show for a low price that almost anyone can pay

2) Offering the show in a sane video format without DRM

3) Making the form for purchasing the show opt out of his mailing list by default

4) Making a heartfelt plea on the purchase form about refraining from torrenting (rather than threats or warnings)

There's your answer to "why would anyone pay for what they can get for free?". For more details on what I'm talking about above: http://www.louisck.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An Anonymous Coward With A Clue, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:14am

Re: MADE UP irrelevance: "Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture."
"This is what i call a "proof from fiction", a favorite of old-time hucksters of the "religious" variety: craft an example that proves exactly what you wish to. -- As Mike did with his $100 million dollar movie example in the "can't compete" piece."

"a favorite of old-time hucksters... craft an example that proves exactly what you wish to"

I see, so by default this applies to the entertainment industry in that case. The same industry you claim not to support, yet almost every post from you would beg to say otherwise.

And again with the $100M movie? Get over it already. Also, Mike NEVER stated that the movie couldn't compete. What Mike said, if you read the article (which you aren't known to actually do), and I'm reciting this from memory, was that whatever you spend on a movie was irrelevant. As far as the viewing public goes. Your sunk cost are of no concern to them. Which is in fact true. The viewing public will pay what they feel is an appropriate amount to see your film, nothing more.

To that effect, per your usual rants, I gave another example. HP's purchase of WebOS and their R&D into creating WebOS based phones and tablets. In June 2010, HP purchased/acquired WebOS for the sum of $1.2 billion. (At the moment, I can't find how much their R&D cost were. I will add that when found. But at present, their unsold stock of HP Touchpads alone, was going to cost them over $100 Million just to sell. As in, even sold, they were sinking $100M of their money into the device.) So total, we could say HP's sunk cost on WebOS (and devices) was a minimum of $1.3 BILLION. That's with a "b".

Now, to that effect, when HP launched the TouchPad, the price of the device was around $499 and $599 (if memory serves me correctly). It was a monumental failure and few sold. In fact, most stayed on store shelves or in warehouses (for online stores). It wasn't until HP realized and acknowledged their failure (that being at setting too high a price for the device) and then rectified said failure (by reducing the price over 3 fold (the 16 GB model then went for $99 and the 32 GB model went for $149) that the devices literally flew off the shelves. So quickly that within days they were sold out.

This says to us, who can read and follow logic, that the customers DID NOT think the value of a WebOS device was appropriate (and worth paying for) at $499/$599. However, they did believe it worth the value at $99 and $149 (respectively). This also shows that despite HP's sunk cost, that mattered little to nothing to consumers. It was quite literally, HP's problem. Not theirs.

This lesson in sunk cost (and it's irrelevant to consumers) has been brought to you by me. An Anonymous Coward With A Clue.

"You can't compete with free. Why would anyone pay for a product that they can get free? -- "Free" includes morally, or rather the lack of conscience in taking someone else's work-product without permission and without paying."

Maybe you should tell that to Evian. I'm sure they'd love for you to educate them on how THEY CAN'T COMPETE WITH FREE.

Then, while you're at it, you can go do the same over at Valve/Steam. Educate them on how they can't compete with free. If they show you any figures/statistics saying otherwise, you can then lecture/educate them on how all their proof/evidence to the contrary is in fact incorrect.

Mike has not denied that piracy exist, what he has (from what I've read) said is that it's not as big a problem as it's made out to be. And the facts/evidence are very much in Mike's favor in this regard. Heck, not even in Mike's favor, more like in everyone's favor (everyone being anyone who isn't an industry person or supporter).

Blue, please, keep your asinine comments to yourself. We're trying to stick to the facts and have a grown up discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What it may also mean is that customers want what is not available yet, or not at the price and method it is currently available.

Which means that the customers are not being served, and will go else where.

Come on! Pull your head out! What do you think will be easier? Changing the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of people to get them to stop pirating or creating a service that gives customers what they want when they want it? For any other industry this is a freaking no-brainer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rubberpants, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With the distain you clearly have for customers you wouldn't be in business without your government-granted monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But you see, that isn't the issue. Those are all sites that pay for licensing, and as such, are not "free". They are perfectly legal outlets. You may not understand it, but these services are paying for the content. Moreover, they prove that online licensing deals aren't that silly, because they are working within them and running businesses.

So what you are saying is that the article itself is wrong, and these services are proof that online licensing is working."

No, that is not at all what I am saying.

What I am saying, is that it is you who are wrong.

You said that if business is lessening it can ONLY be because of illegal downloads. I pointed out that there are legal alternatives that people DO NOT have to pay for that may be just as much to blame for lower business sales. I.e. "people buying less cds".

Those services are indeed paying for the content, but at fixed rates. Those customers are getting a product/service freely and as such are therefore not spending their money on an actual product (cds). Which is exactly the point. People aren't buying the product. Why should they? There are free legal alternatives that allow them to enjoy it just the same.

Thus, I have proven YOU wrong. Not the article or Mike or anyone else. Specifically you. In regards to your original comment.

Please try again to make a point without twisting people's words around. You're not get at it, in fact, you actually misunderstood everything I said just to satisfy your own biased opinion. Which was my other point. You have a certain mindset and anything that doesn't agree with it is irrelevant and wrong (even if it's not). Then when pointed out to you, you try and spin the conversation to something else. Rather than just say "yes, I was wrong, my bad"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"piracy when the product is not available is just greedy, customers wanting what is not available to them."

...and again with the attacks on consumers. Is it any wonder people rebel against this attitude? "I won't sell you what you want, but you're stealing if you find someone else to supply it".

Wake me up when the items I want to buy are actually available to me. Until then, I'll buy from a *legal* competitor (no, you moron, I won't pirate, but the effect is the same on your bottom line). If you lose money because you have opted not to sell the item to me, stop your bitching, you made your choice.

"almost nobody is doing it, because there isn't any money in feeding the pirates"

Erm, what? Nobody's doing it because *you* have to supply the product. If you won't sell the product, your artificial monopoly means that nobody else can do it legally. You use then that as an excuse not to offer the product, since nobody else is doing it legally?

Circular logic at its finest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then please, explain why Team Fortress 2 is the largest-grossing game for Valve this year, in terms of revenues.

Please, explain why Spotify is one of the most effective music services for exploring new music.

Then please, explain why more people are using VODO as a distribution platform.

Then please, explain why iTunes doesn't enable Apple to make shittons of money from people.

Then please, explain whyincluding a digital copy of a movie adds �5 to the cost of a DVD, and �7 to the cost of a blu-Ray, when costs for distribution are marginal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:31am

Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
Become a lawyer, that way you can gouge everyone, if you so wish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:34am

Re:
But the MAFIAA and their ilk will still try and steal that copyrights, even if you opt out of their services - anything for a monopoly rent-seeker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Those are all sites that pay for licensing, and as such, are not "free"."

Erm, yes they are free. Free to the end user, of course, not to their suppliers, but unlike you they've managed to build a business model around this fact, as radio and TV stations before them did. You tend to ignore this while attacking people as "pirates", but there's ways to leverage revenue from people who don't pay directly, if your business model allows that.

"these services are paying for the content."

Nobody said they weren't. What was said is that the end users don't have to pay for it directly, which is 100% true.

"So what you are saying is that the article itself is wrong, and these services are proof that online licensing is working."

Erm, no. The article is saying that the demands of the labels were so out of whack with reality that they delayed the launch of a service in the US by 2 years despite it having been proven successful elsewhere in the world.

It only "works" when you people allow it to and stop trying to cripple services before they're allowed to service markets. See also: regional licencing for TV and DVD/Blu, regional blocks on Hulu, Netflix, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Cowrad, 13 Dec 2011 @ 9:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well said PaulT. I didn't address those points specifically myself, was about to, until I saw your comment had already done just that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 9:30am

Re: MADE UP irrelevance: "Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture."
This has nothing to do with the article or any comments on the article. Are you drunk again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 9:55am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 13th, 2011 @ 8:06am
They'd still demand money in case those CC'ed artists want to collect royalties after all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:34am

I love Monopoly!

"Go to jail. Do not collect 200 hot dogs!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon Lawrence (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:45am

Re:
This comment is a little disingenuous; I've licensed a LOT of music for traditional television and film use, and the terms Mike's talking about in my experience have been similar in negotiations.

If you read the online music agreements at ASCAP or BMI (and that's royalty collecting only), you will see they are indeed structured as Mike points out above.

Here's the links for yourselves:
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/digital/reports/
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/549 538

Convoluted JUNK.

Here's a fun one; my favorite - the Gross Revenue reporting form:
http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/newmedia/web_gross_rev_quarterly.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"nd again with the attacks on consumers."

Paul, it isn't an attack on the consumers, it's just stating facts. I would love a new, 2014 Ferrari. I would love it NOW. Should I be allowed to go and steal the prototype because they aren't actively selling it yet?

Come on.

"Nobody's doing it because *you* have to supply the product. If you won't sell the product, your artificial monopoly means that nobody else can do it legally. You use then that as an excuse not to offer the product, since nobody else is doing it legally?"

You miss the point. Nobody is making product specifically for this market because there isn't any more in it. If you can't get the "hollywood" product you want, go to someone else and try their product instead. Oh, wait, nobody makes a product you want.

Quite simply, you can buy it when it's on sale. I would hope you can be grown up enough to wait until it's actually on the market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 11:03am

Re:
"First off, "For the first time, people are talking" is a great line for saying "we aren't going to name sources", which is a nice way of saying "we made this up"."

"A 15-year veteran of the digital music business, Michael Robertson is the founder and former CEO of MP3.com and is currently CEO of personal cloud music service MP3tunes as well as the radio recording service DAR.fm. "

The source is named and they appear to be of repute and certainly have the experience necessary to speak on the subject at hand. Try again.

"Second, we are talking tenths and hundreds of cents here, not dollars. Further, unlike the "hot dog" example he gives, it is not unusual for people to sit down for tens or even hundreds of songs. So rather than having a "one price per song", there are different ways to calculate things based on actual usage. No doubt if the deals were $0.0X per song, period, you guys would be bitching that it's too expensive that way too."

Actually employing a revolving 'whichever is greater' formula is expressly the opposite of calculating things based on actual usage. Doubly so when one of the possible formulas is '50% of all revenue generated by the store' since that's go nothing to do with usage of the thing being supplied. Just saying something 'is' does not make it so. No one really cares what you think people would be bitching about if everything were different either, that's just pointless speculation. Let's not forget either that you are directly addressing not the writers of this site nor the commenters on this site but a 15 year veterans of the digital music business with these comments so you're essentially saying, to the guy running the hot dog stand, 'well you're just a complainer.' Very productive and poignant that comment.

"Clearly, there are other options and other ways to do business. This reads like some serious whining from people who don't understand business."

Yes, 15 year veterans don't understand the business. Maybe you should get into the streaming business on the internet then, sounds like you've got it all wired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Paul, it isn't an attack on the consumers, it's just stating facts. I would love a new, 2014 Ferrari. I would love it NOW. Should I be allowed to go and steal the prototype because they aren't actively selling it yet?" AC #1 @ 10:51 AM

"You get all screwed up trying to match a physical product to a non-physical product. You will get it wrong every time." AC #1 @ 6:05 AM

It appears that at some point between 6:05 AM and 10:51 AM you forgot that you were discussing a non-physical product

"Oh, wait, nobody makes a product you want." AC

"Until then, I'll buy from a *legal* competitor" PaulT comment being 'responded to.'

Yeah..... this makes no sense. He literally just go through saying he was buying someone else's product so clearly there are other products he wants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Paul, it isn't an attack on the consumers, it's just stating facts."

Yes, the AC troll version of "facts", which tend to be anything but...

"Should I be allowed to go and steal the prototype because they aren't actively selling it yet?"

You people, after all this time, still haven't learned how stupid and irrelevant the car analogy is yet? A decade or more, and we're still trying to teach you how to speak the same language...

But, to utilise your idiocy, no I'm not after the 2014 Ferrari. I'm trying to get the 2008 Ford, which you've either opted not to sell to me in my country, or have decided to put a 50cc lawnmower engine into for the international market, at double the price.

Then you whine about "car thieves" instead of thinking "you know, if we offered the same quality internationally at a similar price, maybe we could sell more?".

Crap analogy, but it's better than what you were offering at least.

"Quite simply, you can buy it when it's on sale."

...and if it's never on sale? Or, if it's on sale, but the end product is so inferior to the (blocked) US release that it's not worth the money? I know you're a spoiled brat, coming from a country that tends not to have these problems, but this *is* the rest of the planet I'm trying to discuss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"He literally just go through saying he was buying someone else's product so clearly there are other products he wants."

Yeah, this is one of the things that tends to confuse these people.

An example I can't remember if I stated before, but it's fresh in my memory: a few weeks ago, an internet retailer emailed me a special offer for Scream 4 for �5 on Blu. Excellent, I though, I'll have a look, I haven't seen that yet and that's a selling price point. I don't mind a blind buy for that amount of money.

There's no extras listed on the site however, so I research a little... oops no sale. The US and Australian releases are extras-packed (2 discs I believe), but the UK version I would buy was almost bare bones, maybe a few trailers but no meat. No problem, I'll just buy the US or Aus releases - oops, no sale. They're region locked and my Blu-Ray player (a PS3) isn't easily made region free.

So, I buy a different Blu Ray form a different distributor, and a couple of other unrelated items instead. These idiots would love to pretend that "piracy" lost the sale, but it wasn't. The UK distributor lost my money the moment they decided to offer an inferior product. The US distributor lost my money the moment they decided to apply regional restrictions. No infringement involved, but rather a simple free market decision.

I still bought legal content I enjoyed, so they lose the right to come whining to me about losing sales in this case. This kind of thing keeps happening...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the whole problem is where you are located, not the product. You were not satisfied with the product, so you didn't buy. Congrats.

No lost sale (remember, there are no lost sales, because you used the money some other way... so there is no "loss"... I learned that from Mike!

"The UK distributor lost my money the moment they decided to offer an inferior product."

Here's the rub - the movie is all there. The only reason you think it's an inferior product is because they don't have extras on it. What do you expect for 5 pounds?

"The US distributor lost my money the moment they decided to apply regional restrictions."

No, the US distributor applied regional restrictions as part of their licensing agreement, because they aren't willing to spend millions of extra dollars to get the rights to sell to you in your region, when few people will buy from them. It's just not justified for them. You cannot force someone to do business at a loss just to make you happy.

I would say Paul that for the most part, it's your expectations that are a little unrealistic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ottermaton (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you a total moron? You say, "You were not satisfied with the product, so you didn't buy. Congrats."

But, HE DID! How did you miss him saying, "So, I buy a different Blu Ray form a different distributor, and a couple of other unrelated items instead." ????

For fuck's sake. He's being underserved so he went somewhere else AND BOUGHT EVEN MORE STUFF!!!!

How do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So the whole problem is where you are located, not the product."

An artificial point in today's world. If only you'd allow me to access the actual content as easily as I can access the retailers who are blocked from supplying it to me...

"No lost sale"

So, you people really can't get your story straight, can you? One minute, you're arguing that someone sharing a copy of a movie represents a guaranteed lost sale, now my decision to deliberately pay for a different product is not a lost sale?

"The only reason you think it's an inferior product is because they don't have extras on it."

Yes, which makes it inferior to the US/Aus releases. Are you stupid? It's a lower value product, and I'll be damned if I'm paying for an inferior product just because you've decided to shovel crap into my part of the world.

"What do you expect for 5 pounds?"

I spent �8 on a 4 disc set of the original Steig Larsson "Girl With..." movie trilogy on DVD instead. Better value, I'd say.

Oh, you expect me to buy a crappy release of a movie I might not like just because it's �5? No, I'll not pay for that thanks, I'll pick up some other bargains from other companies.

"No, the US distributor applied regional restrictions as part of their licensing agreement"

...an agreement which is an artificial construct of the industry designed to take advantage of the pre-internet world where the differences between PAL/NTSC actually mattered.

It's not 1998 any more. Get used to it. Don't whine about "piracy" when your own business model caves in under your feet because you're trying to rip me off.

"spend millions of extra dollars to get the rights to sell to you in your region"

Well, someone's doing it wrong, and it ain't me.

"You cannot force someone to do business at a loss just to make you happy."

Nor can you force me to spend my money on inferior crap.

"I would say Paul that for the most part, it's your expectations that are a little unrealistic."

My money, I will spend it how I wish. It's here if you wish to offer me the product I wish to buy, else go whine somewhere else. Pirates are not your enemy - you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
welllll, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
i have not bought a book song movie or anything really since 98.

i mostly just hunt and work.

so yeah. suck it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
heyidiot (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:25pm

Yes, steal the Ferrari...
...when it costs exactly ZERO for the manufacturer to make another one.

I'm fine with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the risk of boring everyone some more today:

"Paul, it isn't an attack on the consumers, it's just stating facts. I would love a new, 2014 Ferrari. I would love it NOW. Should I be allowed to go and steal the prototype because they aren't actively selling it yet?"

Actually they haven't finished designing it yet, Ferrari keeps their prototypes and designs under lock and key in their plant or on their testing grounds. Both are massive places controlled by card locks and with enough camera's around that they could count the blackheads in your nose.

Not only that but a prototype for a 2014 vehicle when the 2012 vehicle year has just started is likely missing some important things like an engine, real brakes, seats, wheels and so on.

You can't buy or steal what doesn't exist yet. Dumbest argument I've heard here in a coon's age and a false analogy as has been endlessly explained to you.

By the same token you can't "pirate" a partially completed recording. Make that dumbest argument in several coon's ages.

"You miss the point. Nobody is making product specifically for this market because there isn't any more in it." Any more in it that what? Exactly what. Please fill me in as I look for nonexistent record stores to sell the product be it recordings or films. People buy on line these days. Legally where they can, or can afford, from iTunes or Amazon and "illegally" when they must. The product IS there. The demand IS there. The idea is to connect the two right? Ohhhh, I see now!

"f you can't get the "hollywood" product you want, go to someone else and try their product instead."

Try Bollywood. Perhaps the most pirated entertainment products that exist. And guess much, they make money hand over fist, churning out some (by North American standards and tastes) some of the most god-awful movies and music in creation but their profits are enormous and rising. They pack theatres around the world, release on CD and DVD, and finally on their own download sites at reasonable prices which quickly cuts off the pirates by basically having better quality and reliability of product and pricing. They've also watch the "grey market" (pirates) if you like to see what has traction and that's what makes it into their online stores. Really really cheap market research, no?
That and Bollywood has been smart about it all.
The same can't be said for Hollywood, mind you.

"Quite simply, you can buy it when it's on sale. I would hope you can be grown up enough to wait until it's actually on the market."
So now we get to the nub of the matter. It's not about copyright, it's not about the poor starving artists and crews, it's not about much of anything they say it's about

Its about CONTROL OF THE SUPPLY CHANNEL so they can charge maximum prices at minimal effort. Just as they always have. They don't have to change, it seems. WE do.
Except. those days are gone.

Because they wouldn't supply the product in any digital form on line they gave birth to Napster, who would. They were dragged kicking, screaming and hollering into iTunes and Amazon. Though pricing is reasonable there some of the restrictions they extorted out of Apple and Amazon make the product very very annoying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:26pm

It will be a great day....
It will be a great day for humanity when copyright and patent laws are reformed so they do the most good for the most people, and when national borders are erased so a global free market can work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:36pm

Re: MADE UP irrelevance: "Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture."
Back to the movie again?

Piracy is HUGE. Not that I'm denying its there, has been since the first pair of computers connected with each other across 4kb/s dial up modems and discussed where dinner would be and what Sinatra film and album they'd pirate fo accompany it.

But, pray tell, HOW HUGELY HUGE that you need to break a moral gasket or three on? As long as you want facts how about coming up with some of your own that withstand some analysis and investigation?

And some minor bit or realism would actually help, just a wee bit. Accusations of theft without any tangible evidence sounds more like a quasi-religous cult chant than a fact. And, a minor quibble, is that copyright infringement is NOT theft. Even at the supposed criminal level. If it was Criminal Codes would do away with the copyright infringement nonsense and just call it Theft.

Meanwhile, Hollywood and the general entertainment industry are still profitable, amazingly profitable for an industry under such incredible stress as you emotionally say they are. (Oh yeah, and find so dangerous in between posts defending them or shilling for them.) Not to mention Bollywood who are more "pirated" than Hollywood ever will be but still net more than Hollywood does in it's wildest of wildest dreams.

Why pay for a product when you can get if for free? Guess you gotta ask those who line up at crafts sales this time of year who do just that by the thousands.

Ask Deadheads who support a band that encourages "infringement" theft from the stage yet who still sell records by the boatload, live an extremely comfortable life and just love what they've done and are doing. (The Dead have encouraged recording and distribution of bootlegs of live shows for decades.) Sure sounds like what you call piracy to me.

"Just stick to facts, you WEENIES." At this juncture I have to ask the Blue Meanie to produce some real, actual, verifiable facts of his own.

Put up or shut up it's called. And I think you need to take some meds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:48pm

The world changed. Live with it.
Where do you need the distributors or labels in a world where artists can sign up directly with online distributors such as Spotify? What I mean is, it's not the artists the labels and distributors are trying to save, but themselves. The fact is their business model belongs to past and these morons in charge never realized that they should have created Spotify in the first place. It was so much nicer to whine and harass customers than to admit the fact that world changed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:17pm

Re: where else is the business going, besides to illegal downloads?
If there is so much money to be made from �illegal� downloads, why don�t the content companies serve that market, instead of trying to downplay it or demonize it? They can supply the exact same product, and make the exact same money, with the added bonus that they can give themselves permission to do it, so it needn�t be �illegal� any more.

Either there�s money to be made from �piracy�, or there isn�t. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Erm, yes they are free. Free to the end user, of course, not to their suppliers, but unlike you they've managed to build a business model around this fact, as radio and TV stations before them did. You tend to ignore this while attacking people as "pirates", but there's ways to leverage revenue from people who don't pay directly, if your business model allows that."

Don't be a dumbass Paul (and you are good at it!).

Free radio isn't "FREE!", you pay for it with your attention, and you are forced to listen to the music in a particular order which is beneficial to the station, not to you. You don't control radio.

You pay for the music with your attention, and the radio stations sell that attention on in order to get the actual cash to pay the bills.

You don't want ads? Pay for XM or similar sat radio services.

The end users don't pay for it directly, but if they all filtered out the ads and never listened to them, the free service would disappear, because it isn't "FREE!".

"Erm, no. The article is saying that the demands of the labels were so out of whack with reality that they delayed the launch of a service in the US by 2 years despite it having been proven successful elsewhere in the world."

Erm, no. The article fails to address why this happened (the rates would have been way too low compared to existing radio deals, which would have lead to downward pressure in the much larger and established radio market). The model hasn't been shown to be entirely profitable, sorry.

"See also: regional licencing for TV and DVD/Blu, regional blocks on Hulu, Netflix, etc."

All things that exist because the cost of the content is high, and often restricted by local laws and requirements. It is also driven by the ability for your local broadcasters to pay for American TV shows, sometimes 1 or 2 years behind current, in order to keep costs reasonable to them. Whatever money could be made selling you the stuff online is nothing compared to the money garnered in the resale market for broadcast, and then the syndication rights thereafter.

You need to take the issues up with your local government. They protectionist laws, labeling laws, and "required translation percentage" is what keeps most movies out of your marketplace - that and wide open piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hehe, again conflating stealing with infringement. Guess, just how much that helps your argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quite simply, you can buy it when it's on sale

Or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be a dumbass Paul (and you are good at it!).

Coming from an asshat like you I'm sure that hurt his feelings, LOL. He's prolly pretty impressed by a douche who doesn't understand a thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
You get all screwed up trying to match a physical product to a non-physical product.

You mean like you and your car analogy from above? LOL, you're funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott the MPAA & RIAA
What's with the capitals now? Are you that desperate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:53pm

Re: MADE UP irrelevance: "Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture."
Look at actual piracy, Mike. It exists, and it's HUGE.
Just stick to facts, you WEENIES.

Will do, sucker. The industry's own numbers proof that despite being huge it's in no way as damaging as they make it out. Tough shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 1:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You don't control radio."

Erm, yes I do. I can turn it on and off, and I can tune into whichever station I wish at any time I wish. I can also choose to turn it off during the ad breaks - you can't force me to listen to the stuff that "pays" with my "attention".

I don't have the same level of control as I do with Spotify in terms of track listing, but it sure as hell is controllable, and it's free in exactly the same way as Spotify.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make here.

"ability for your local broadcasters to pay for American TV shows"

So, you admit the prices are often too high and encourage piracy. Nice.

"Whatever money could be made selling you the stuff online is nothing compared to the money garnered in the resale market for broadcast, and then the syndication rights thereafter."

Citation needed, methinks.

"They protectionist laws, labeling laws, and "required translation percentage" is what keeps most movies out of your marketplace"

Bullshit.

Really, when all of your premises rest on half truths and outright lies, it's no wonder you can't bear to listen to reality.

Let's try this one for size: why is it that I can legally import a show from the UK but not import the same show from the US and play it on my legally obtained equipment?

If you're going to try blaming Spain's laws rather than the inefficiencies of the business model, cite the law please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then please, explain why Team Fortress 2 is the largest-grossing game for Valve this year, in terms of revenues.

Lies. Lies and calumny. You can't compete with free! And Minesweeper came free on my computer.

Why would I buy another game when I can play Minesweeper for free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:58am

Re: Re:
Interesting. Looking at one of those forms, even someone playing 0 ASCAP songs is still 'magically' liable for paying $340 a year. That's a tax/fine on playing music, but not even going to the government...
[ link to this | view in thread ]