Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
from the digging-in dept
A year ago, we announced our Sky is Rising report, sponsored by CCIA, looking at the state of the global entertainment industry over the last decade -- and seeing that, despite the doom and gloom that we heard from some legacy players, the story actually showed tremendous opportunity. There was massive growth in content being produced, growth in revenue (though often distributed differently than through traditional gatekeepers) and tremendous new opportunities for content creators. It also found that, contrary to the claims that people just wanted content for free, people were spending more on entertainment. All in all, the data showed a much more positive picture than some have been spinning. That said, it did also highlight many of the challenges that content creators faced, with two key ones being important: the massive growth in content meant much more competition for consumers' dollars, while the changing technology and services landscape meant that the specific road map was a lot less clear.This year, we're back with our second edition of the report, The Sky is Rising Two, once again, kindly sponsored by CCIA. This time around, we focused much more specifically on a few key countries in Europe: Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Russia and Spain. After the first report, we received some very reasonable questions about whether or not the global data reflected the situation across every country, or if one or two places (such as the US) might dominate and distort the picture in other countries. We chose to look at six of the larger economies in Europe individually, to see what we might find, and that's the focus of the second report. Once again, we've got a nice infographic that summarizes many of the findings:
Of course, the same caveats that we saw last year still apply. There is more competition, and the path to success may be less clear. So for individual creators, it may seem like a much greater struggle -- though their overall slate of opportunities continues to increase. Similarly, with new services and new opportunities, there remain challenges for the legacy players (especially if they had gatekeeper roles) to remain relevant. Please check out the full report below:
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: data, europe, sky is rising
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should see the golden toilets and cocaine-bag-carrying mega-hookers they send us. INSANE, brah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Careful, unlike regular hookers, the DOJ will send swat to your house and put you in prison with trumped up charges when you use mega-hookers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But does Mike have an opinion as to whether we should have any copyright? Nope. He's too scared, too dishonest, too fake to take a stand. He's unable to say. No opinion there.
Just ask him. He'll lie like he always does because there isn't an honest cell in his body. But ask him anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No...not beneficial. What's the opposite of beneficial?
Ah yes, worthless. That's it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez...
You ask him every day... After post after post in regards to copyright... He answers you but you STILL fail to believe him...
Yeah, you logic is off the rails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez...
You ask him every day... After post after post in regards to copyright... He answers you but you STILL fail to believe him...
Yeah, you logic is off the rails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geez...
That, folks, is what dishonesty looks like. He's too scared to take a position. He just wants to shit all over everyone else's beliefs while pretending like he doesn't have any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Geez...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Geez...
Oh, the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the rest of my comment:
That makes no sense at all. In fact, it's a bizarre thing to say. To say that you think something should no longer be law is to acknowledge that it is currently law. So, if Mike actually held this opinion, it would not be "legally 100% wrong", it would be "legally 100% right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're not contributing to this conversation at all with any constructive feedback.
Considering Mr Masnick's multiple statements in multiple threads and posts regarding copyright, he's only against abuse of the public domain by extending copyrights beyond absurdity.
Why don't you go troll at the RIAA's website, I'm sure they'd love to hear your pointless drivel.
We want artists reading these posts to see logic and reason, to see how they've been snowed by people afraid of competition and losing control. We want them to better themselves and succeed and earn a living, retain their rights, and contribute to society.
Again, your daddy should have pulled out or worn a condom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF AJ
Second, do you just have a dartboard with a rant of that you are going to use?
I can understand that you have a limited amount of scripts that you can follow but you should at least try to pick one that has some bearing on the subject being discussed instead of just a random rant of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a positive light
Great article and thoroughly researched. It definitely put a smile on my face this morning to see someone shine a bright light on our future. Specifically, your points pertaining to authors, eBooks, and writing, are spot on. That section of our industry is absolutely exploding right now and I am happy to be a part of it. Excellent read. I will be sharing this on all of my networks. Tip of the hat.
Colton Joseph
www.novelnook.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing left to rationalise.
But according to copyright believers, there is no circle that cannot be squared.
"Your property is our property."
"Yes, the first-sale doctrine is acceptable collateral damage in a Capitalistic society."
"The Government subsidising the destruction of markets is necessary, and those who DISAGREE are the Communists."
"Guilty until proven innocent if you use a storage locker for ANY reason.. but WE are innocent until proven guilty when it comes to stealing data from users when we shut down storage lockers."
"Copyright's unfalsifiable nature is further proof that it is the only way to obtain incentives. Crowdfunding websites are the enemies of copyright law since they disprove copyright law as a sole incentive."
"Look at all the piracy in China! But isn't their Great Firewall a great idea? Let's adopt it for ourselves and call it SOPA - that is SURE to sent the piracy rates plummeting! Also, let's adopt their ideology of trade restrictions by banning copyrighted material being imported from abroad! THAT will surely help to kill the piracy even more!"
"We can DRM-lock-down your legitimately purchased games at any time, and if you disagree with us it is YOU who is the thief!"
"We as publishers go against the wishes of artists, prevent them from having a say in their very own works, all in the name of protecting their rights!"
"You have the right to put your works into the public domain... so that we can buy it right back out again!"
"You have a right to protect yourself from libel and plagiarism... unless your works are in the public domain... or a higher publisher has your rights."
"How dare those under the Soviet Union pirate copies of 1984 and Animal Farm in order to hide from the secret police! What, just because the Soviets have heavy trade restrictions? Excuse makers! Communists! Anyway, back to work on our trade restrictions and SOPA-style secret policing..."
I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, comrades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing left to rationalise.
But according to copyright believers, there is no circle that cannot be squared."
Don't blame copyright law. It's the *misapplication* of it to seize ownership of private property that is the problem. Copyright law is not intended to allow copyright holders to claim blanket ownership over privately owned copies, and it is not intended to allow an end run around the USA First Amendment right to access speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing left to rationalise.
Copyright has to necessarily be aggressive towards physical property rights in order to be enforced. So it is no wonder that it gets abused. It is therefore a slippery slope, and I cannot imagine how you restrict that slippery nature legally. You only need to look at the huge number of rationalisations that are added as extensions to the copyright law: "It's okay when you copy to your iPod.. but NOT okay when you sell the CD away afterwards.. but you can make backups.. but, but, but etc." These are classic signs of multi-layered rationalisation and ambiguities, which corporations will obviously take advantage of. Occam's Razor surely has to be stated here: the simplest explanation is that copyright cannot keep up with the real world.
There is also a cultural slippery slope as well as a legal one. Culturally, everybody will seek to support extending copyright laws in order to enforce monopolies on their own works, but do not realise that this makes them prisoners of their own actions because they deny themselves the right to make derivative works of others for profit. That is why Disney always seeks to extend the copyright laws and is, importantly, never satisfied with the latest extension - they always call for more. We need to culturally discredit copyright, and I choose that word because the best way of doing so is to allow the freedom of derivative creative works to flourish (crowdfunding incentives empower both original and derivative works). When they grow, and we make copyright unthinkable in the face of all the numerous derivative artists' economic survival, it will be hard to undo and fall back into the trap of never-ending-extending copyright.
Discredit it, and make it instinctively avoidable based on historical justification. With copyright, you only have originals. Without it, you have many originals and many derivatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, the idiot trolls trying to derail every thread with lies and distortions still continue. Luckily, the data presented makes your whining less and less relevant every day. Unless you're trying to claim that the uptake in both legal services and industry revenue is "theft" somehow, of course, in which case there's no hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Herp piracy!"
"More facts."
"Derp thieves!"
"Research data and statistics."
"Herpaderp Google shill!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Translation = I don't need yer fancy book-learnin', Ivy-League boy. Now squeal like a pig! SQUEEEEEEEEE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Don't confuse with me facts, my mind is already made up."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, Google is a member, so is Microsoft, Intuit, Nvida, none of which are known for their love of 'theft' as you call it (it isn't theft by the way, and that has been explained to you many times, so I won't waste space explaining it to you again). As a matter of fact they all are pretty active in protecting all of their IP.
There is one thing that I have noted never changes on this site, and that is your trolling posts.
Don't get me wrong, as they say, there are lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. Numbers can be twisted to mean anything you want them to mean, but you have to look at the source.
Is it coming from the MAFIAA? They have a dog in this fight, we know they will twist the numbers to suit them.
Is it coming from a Non-Profit that has members from all sides? Might be a little less skewed than you would like to portray.
Now who is the one living in fantasy land?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By his definition, anyone who has an opinion different from his is a dirty pirate thief. So, in his world, all of those companies are dirty pirate thieves. If you don't agree with AJ, you're evil regardless of who you are, and he'll make up stuff to smear you with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So put up or shut the fuck up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is the article you and yours refer to when saying mike is a "paid shill". READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
But knowing how hard that might be for you to do, here's an excerpt that I'm sure you glanced at and now use as (faulty/dud) ammunition in your vendetta against Mike:
"So, there's been this slightly weird tangent in the Oracle/Google patent & copyright dispute, in which Judge Alsup -- for reasons that are still not clear to anyone -- ordered both companies to disclose the names of any "authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in [the] case." Both sides made filings last week, with Oracle disclosing -- as was already public -- that it had blogger Florian Mueller on staff as a consultant, and mentioning an Oracle employee who blogged about the case. Google, on the other hand, told the court that it hadn't paid anyone to comment on the case at all, but did mention that in the course of its regular activities, it does give money to various companies, some of whom may have had employees who commented on the story. Judge Alsup came back earlier this week and told Google it didn't try hard enough and to find some names to name.
Earlier today, Google did its filing and apparently found some names... including mine! Yes, I know that we've had some haters declaring for years that I'm a Google shill, so this must be the confirmation of all their conspiracy theories, rumors and attacks, right? Well, no. I'm named in the section about CCIA -- the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Why? Because CCIA sponsored some research that we did. Here's what the filing states:
The CCIA has commissioned studies by Mike Masnick, CEO of Floor64.
See http://www.floor64.com/about.php. Mr. Masnick has commented on the case on the TechDirt website and on his personal friendfeed.com account. See Ex. X (available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/11050519050/boom-jury-says-no-patentinfringement- google-oracle-case.shtml and at http://friendfeed.com/mmasnick/a3a94012/jurygoogle- did-not-infringe-on-oracle-patents)."
Now to summarize, for those in the class that are obviously slower than others, it quite clearly states the judge in the case asked for a list of people who may write something about the case. Oracle listed one person they specifically paid as a consultant. Google listed no one, because there was no one. The judge said to try harder in finding some names. To satisfy the judge Google literally threw together a list of names of anyone and everyone who may have written about the case and who they in some small, way, shape or form may have "paid" to do so. Mike was listed. Why? Because Google as a member of CCIA sponsored a study written by Mike, namely the original "Sky Is Rising" report.
So yeah, not a paid shill and you're still an idiot. Actually, you're a bigger one for still bringing that up as proof that he's a Google shill. 9 months later and you still can't read the fucking article or develop even a tiny amount of reading comprehension. There are some people who are literally to stupid to live and the world wouldn't miss much if they dropped off the face of the earth this moment. You are one of those people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious, since the word "shill" is tossed around here at anybody who disagrees with the TD agenda, how is writing something for CCIA, which is funded in part by Google, not being a mouthpiece for Google?
Seriously. It doesn't raise your bullshit detector when "studies" that prove gun violence "saves lives" end up being funded by a think tank that accepts money from the NRA?
Or when studies that prove that piracy effects record sales are shown to be written by a non-profit that accepts funds from the RIAA?
To me, it's plainly obvious that MM is a mouthpiece for Google. It's not hidden by the shell game of third party funding; that's a fairly old and predictable political trick. Think about this, about six months ago Google sued a poor college student in Africa over a trademark dispute between the similarities of search engine specifically for employment named "Doogle-It" and Google's brand; yet not a single word was written about it here. In fact, the only time it comes up in a search of both TD's internal logs, and Google's "site:" search only turns up a single mention, in a comment, by Suzanne Lainson.
That doesn't strike you as incredibly convenient?
Think about it. Recall the hysterics over any other company who does the same thing.
Open your eyes. You are not fighting the good fight. You are on the oppressing side of history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The word "shill" is tossed around by anyone who insists that something is wrong "because it's the law" and does absolutely nothing else to back up that claim. Sometimes it's used interchangeably with "troll" because said proponents exhibit some of the most baseless, amateurish and infantile methods of argumentation. If this is the sort of behaviour you'd like to defend and encourage, sure, go ahead. Just don't be offended when people treat you in kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"To me, it's plainly obvious that MM is a mouthpiece for Google."
To you, it's also plainly obvious that I'm a pirate according to your regular accusations, but I know that's an outright lie, a despicable attempt to smear someone because you can't handle their actual honestly held beliefs and statements.
Why should I believe you about Mike, especially coming from someone who so regularly attacks the credentials of others without supplying his own?
"In fact, the only time it comes up in a search of both TD's internal logs, and Google's "site:" search only turns up a single mention, in a comment, by Suzanne Lainson."
I see you whine a lot about what is and isn't written here. One minute you're whining that your preferred story hasn't been mentioned, the next you're whining that Mike is covering SOPA or Aaron Schwartz too much. You need to realise that this is not your personal blog, and Mike will cover what interests him, not what you want to hear.
But, there's ways to request things to be discussed. Did you try to submit the story through the channels specifically provided for you to do so? If not, why not? Was Mike aware of the story otherwise? I know I miss things when reading the comments sometimes because there's so many, and I don't subscribe to nearly every thread. What reason do you have to believe that Mike was fully aware of this obscure story?
For the record, I didn't know about that story until you linked to it just now, and I agree it's a bad thing although trademark law is one of those things you do have to defend - "use it or lose it", unlike copyright. Is there a common African work linking "Doogle" to employment? If not, why was this not a case of trademark infringement?
Is this the only example you have of Google wrongdoing not being covered? I can link to stories where Mike has directly criticised Google if you wish, assuming you don't ignore them because they undermine your agenda.
"You are on the oppressing side of history."
You're delusional. At least I have the evidence to prove my assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, yes. It absolutely taints everything they have to say related to the companies that are footing the bill. Floor 64's agenda--it's mission statement--is supplying blog posts for people who hire them. It's not a mystery, it's right here on the site:
You obviously have me confused with someone else. I was definitely not a supporter of SOPA or PIPA; but I'm aware that there is comfort in assuming that everyone who disagrees with you has to be the same person. That's your own issue. I can't help you with that.
As far as piracy, who cares? It's hand-waving. (And I'm quite sure that I've never accused you of anything. I'm afraid you may have a persecution complex) My concern is the creep of corporate claws into every facet of life. Turning a blind eye to piracy is part of that agenda, yes, but it's not the end game.
You've clearly veered off into some delusional world where I post on TD frequently. That is not the case. I post when I see outright lies about the music industry, seeing as how I've actually made a living making music and most of what's passed around on the internet as "knowledge" about the business is out and out bullshit. That's all. I don't give a fuck about Aaron Schwartz posts. Although I do retch a little at the way his death is being used to push corporate agendas. But, that's not my world, I'll leave everybody else to examine their own motives.
Indeed I did. Nice try, though.
You don't wonder why you haven't heard about it? I presume you read other tech blogs beside this one? I'll admit, it was a story somewhat under the radar, but that is what's troubling to me; that there seems to be an invisible hand behind the scenes.
I'm not sure that rhyming is a case of trademark infringement. It should also be noted that there are many sites already using the name.
Besides, as far as "use it or lose it" goes (which, technically, is not exactly true), Google should be much more concerned with the fact that people use "Google" as a verb meaning to search for something on the internet. That is a threat to their trademark .
First of all, I don't think pointing out bullshit is an "agenda." You seem to want to accuse me of some conspiratorial collusion with some phantom media company that exists in your mind, but you do realize that it's you who is wearing the tinfoil hat when you make these blind accusations, right?
Second, sure, knock yourself out. Post links to stories criticizing Google. Then, also provide links to the other companies criticized around here. You can weigh and compare the results yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An interesting group of companies with wildly different aims, industries and setups. Is Mike a shill for them all? It is interesting that you only ever lash out at him for that one time he was associated with Google, even though your quote places it clearly as just one of many companies he's helped out..
"You've clearly veered off into some delusional world where I post on TD frequently."
Lacking any other information, I have to assume you're the same anonymous coward who's obsessed with Mike's Google association, criticises Mike whenever he posts multiple times about a subject that interests him (Schwartz most recently) and lies frequently about people here on a regular basis. Don't like it? There's a way of differentiating yourself from that loser - use it.
"Indeed I did. Nice try, though."
Not a "try" - an honest question to make sure you used the facilities available to you before you started whining. Good for you that you did, though that still doesn't explain why you're whining that an opinion blog didn't cover the particular obscure story that you like. Again, I hadn't heard about it before you brought it up, and this is hardly the only tech site I read - maybe it's just not that important to people that Google is using a trademark dispute process as it's intended?
"it was a story somewhat under the radar"
So you admit it was a story that didn't interest that many people. Why are you singling out Techdirt for criticism if so many mainstream outlets also didn't cover it? I could understand if you were criticising the site for not covering a relatively well known story that puts Google in a bad light, but an obscure story that nobody else was bothered about covering? Is that the best you've got?
"I'm not sure that rhyming is a case of trademark infringement. "
They changed a single letter. I'm sure that if I set up a site called Dony or Nicrosoft, I'd get some questions from companies, why should Google not be questioning this?
"Google should be much more concerned with the fact that people use "Google" as a verb meaning to search for something on the internet. That is a threat to their trademark ."
True, although I fail to see what they can actually do to stop this, or why that has any effect on whether they should be addressing the African company.
"First of all, I don't think pointing out bullshit is an "agenda." "
Which is why I often oppose your blatant lies about me and other posters here. Your agenda is making up bullshit, not pointing it out. Unless you're not the AC that's obsessed with doing so, in which case feel free to differentiate yourself.
"Post links to stories criticizing Google. "
After a quick search, these are the first ones I spotted:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/02045620096/google-launches-patent-attack-appl e-disappointing-first-company.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22351120487/googles -copyright-crackdown-punishes-author-torrenting-his-own-book.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articl es/20120812/23494420001/seven-reasons-why-google-is-making-mistake-filtering-searches-based-dmca-not ices.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/11022312911/googles-childish-response-to-mic rosoft-using-google-to-increase-bing-relevance.shtml
Want to stop pretending they don't exist now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My apologies, I hadn't noticed that you have indeed chosen a name for yourself instead of using the anonymous coward handle in the post I was replying to. Well done, although I would note that creating a login will prevent others from imitating you if that concerns you.
Still, you've shown a lot more honesty in doing this that the regular AC commenter I'm thinking of has shown in several years, although you do seem to parrot a few of his regular false obsessions. I do thank you for your honesty, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That depends, are the studies accurate? To me it's plainly obvious that your employing cargo cult tactics here, trying to mimic arguments you've heard from the other side assuming they will resonate because they sound the same to you. The problem is it's all just a fancy show and you're missing the important parts. People say things like that about NRA and RIAA studies after it's revealed that they're inaccurate. That's what raises these questions you're trying to raise here, the inaccuracies. So where are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My pondering is really this - given that I currently pay a Canadian company to provide a VPN so that I can access the UK version of Netflix while no Spanish version is available, how does this figure into the report? I would presume that my Netflix usage shows as UK-based, thus skewing the figures.
It's nice to see growing figures in most areas even with the skewing that myself and my many thousands of fellow expats who bypass regional restrictions in the same way must do, however, and hopefully Netflix will be allowed to provide a native service here very soon.
Hopefully such concerns will become moot in the near future - hell, even Microsoft have finally realised that people move their XBoxes between countries from time to time, but until then it looks like good news overall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm going to be a nag about this...
i will make this point again, because i think techdirtia bends over backwards to assert everyone is willing to pay their FAIR (caps, underlined, bold, quotes, 36pt text of 'FAIR') share for 'stuff'...
*HOWEVER*, i will ask again, WHO on dog's green earth does NOT like 'free' stuff ? ? ?
i make this point NOT to rationalize copyright infringement, but as a general point of reference: WHO does NOT like free stuff in general ? ? ?
EVERYONE on this planet likes free stuff... EVERYONE.
AND that MOST especially includes the likes of the MAFIAA who want free rent for close-to or ZERO effort...
talk about freetards...
AND that -to the tenth power- MOST especially includes 'rich' people who are ALWAYS looking to get free goods and services BECAUSE they are rich/powerful/influential celebutards...
(as an aside, THAT alone is why i got my hate on tiger woods after his night-golfing-with-SUV's incident... could care less about his/their personal travails and screwing around, but the stories that came out about him stiffing waitresses (no pun intended), demanding places comp him meals and shit... FUCK THAT CHEAP BASTARD...
one of the most privileged, celebrated, richest pukes on the planet, and he has to get free meals and shit from working stiffs making minimum wage ? ? ? fuck him...)
no, the people who REALLY DESERVE 'free stuff' almost never get it; the rich pukes who do NOT DESERVE 'free stuff' almost always get it...
they get all the money, they get all the laws, they get all the perks, they get all the advantages, they get all the tax breaks, they get -literally- EVERYTHING; and we get stuck with the bill... fuckers...
(factoid: if you took the income of the top 100 richest people in the world, it would alleviate the poverty of EVERY poor person on the planet...
...FOUR TIMES OVER.)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i'm going to be a nag about this...
I've thought about this too, but I think when an artist uses perceived value effectively, instead of offering things for free, it can help them in the long-run.
I think there's a balance though. Giving away everything for free is not the best idea, but allowing people to sample a decent amount may make them feel obligated to give back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i'm going to be a nag about this...
The Free and Open Source Software community would disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: i'm going to be a nag about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: i'm going to be a nag about this...
I was referring to artists (not that programmers aren't artists in their own way) distributing music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i'm going to be a nag about this...
Everyone does.
However, people realize that, in order to get stuff, they need to pay money, because nothing's free in life and you don't want the artists to starve.
So, people are willing to pay for stuff, so long as it's reasonable (not 60-80 dollars a pop), easy to use (no DRM) and readily available (hello thar, windowing, go away now).
Hell, even Nintendo's realizing this. I don't know if there are any Pokemon fans here, but, in the past, those games were spread out over the course of months, first Japan, then America, then the rest of the world. Next Pokemon games are going to be released around the world on the same day. Japan, America, EU, Australia, Singapore, ETC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i'm going to be a nag about this...
Free is nice. I don't think anyone disputes that.
However, free is not an overriding factor. I can think of a lot of stuff, including some music and movies, that I don't want at any price, even free.
I can also think of a lot of stuff that I can get for free, but pay for nonetheless.
It boils down to value. The value of something is largely independent of its monetary price. A thing does not become more or less valuable because the price point changes.
Also, price and cost are two different things. Price is a component of cost, but not the only one. For example, I would never use Ultraviolet even if all movies through it were free, because the costs would still be too high (hassle, insecurity, privacy, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i'm going to be a nag about this...
I attempted it with the copy of Dark Knight Rises I got for Christmas. Although my situation might be different from yours with issues that might not apply (region restrictions, etc.), I can honestly say don't bother. Handbrake got me the digital copy, Ultraviolet failed miserably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i'm going to be a nag about this...
People like free stuff, but they prefer to pay for better stuff.
Nobody on dog's green earth opts for the cheapest option every time. In fact, everyone on dog's green earth often passes over cheaper alternatives when paying for something.
I will make THIS point again: Piracy is the white slavery of our time. It's a fringe concern for copyright retention reasons, but the term is mainly used hysterically, to drive power and money grabs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An informed public is a dangerous one in their eyes.
Heck, remember how bad it got around here the week before the SOPA vote? Every other comment was from a troll/shill. And not just the usual ones, they really earned their pay that week. But man, was it heaven when they lost/SOPA got shelved. Not a peep for like a whole two weeks. I wonder whatever happened to the guy who kept promising to throw Mike a towel when SOPA passed so he could use it to dry his tears. And by wonder whatever happened I mean I wonder how many towels he used to dry his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curious about per-capita changes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you so much!
I'v met James Waterworth from CCIA not long ago and we've talked about international issues and future. Will be promoting this research in Russia for sure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Formatting on fact sheets...
I wood recommend laying out pages like that with the same structure in the future.
Either way, awesome to see. Keep it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]