Now they have a reason to walk into a cafe and say, "Here's my CD. Play it as much as you want." and expect the owners to be agreeable. This should also bolster the local live music scenes, since these clubs won't have to pay extra for that either. Who knows, the next music wave may come out of Australia, all while those collections agencies and record labels continue to see their profits evaporate.
Now that I've thought about this a little, I recant. It might be easy to spot once people complained about the charges and they noticed several charges on the same account, or do credit card companies even report bad charges to the retailer? Do they just eat the losses and hope no one finds out how easy to steal their numbers?
It's only simple to spot when the criminals are stupid and greedy. If they were to buy each track once or twice with several (hundred) different cards then no one would notice. It might even be a way to boost your exposure if iTunes uses any kind of notification of what's getting hit a lot that day. They wouldn't get as big a payout up front, but it would be a much more sustainable model.
But are you really going to carry around a bar of gold in your pocket? You'd be too worried about it being stolen. Same with a music player, if you have 250,000 songs on it and you paid $1/song, then are you really going to want to carry it around with you anymore? Especially if you lose it or it is stolen, and the replacement upon syncing with your computer has the power and possibility to wipe your entire library because it doesn't match. Not only have you lost your original player, you are also out the $250K for music. Do you honestly believe anyone is going to shell out another $250K to replace music they already "legally" bought?
Reading the article it sounds like the lawyers were misrepresenting facts in the case - "[friended counsel] later posted a Facebook reference to the issue of whether his client had had an affair, saying “How do I prove a negative?”" and "[The judge] told investigators the poem [found on opposing counsel's website] had suggested that [opposing counsel's] client was not as bitter as he first thought and had given him hope for the litigants’ children."
So a lawyer was not truly representing the facts in a case, a judge, whose job it is to discern the truth, had to go around the standard judicial proceedings to find the truth of the matter. Sounds like he was trying to do his job. He could still have used the web to research the situation and influence his decision without getting "personally" involved.
That said, he was out of line for friending only one of the lawyers. If both lawyers were not on fb then he should not have friended either. I've always thought the term "friend" was overused on any social site. I have a lot more acquaintances and people I barely knew in high school than actual friends on fb, but they are all called friends.
Gotta agree. I've seen a money can on the way out where folks can toss cash on their way out but most just walk on by. Once they've consumed a show and enough intoxicants, the only thin on most people's minds is getting home or to the next party.
Additionally, you can't force people to line up to exit. Someone will eventually try to claim felonious or unlawful restraint and try to take all the money the band made and then some.
Time sensitive content goes stale rather quickly. News, for example, loses its initial value within hours and only retains value in the long tail. The retained value for time sensitive content comes from who can provide it the quickest and most accurate. The best way to get time sensitive content out is online, and if the long lasting value comes from you being a source for that information then the quicker more people see it for free from you the more valuable you are.
The guy missed a few points in his article, not the least of which was the opportunity to talk to someone who has been successful and see if his hunch played out. He also missed the crucial factor of perception in his equation:
Perceived Cost = Price + Hassle - Perceived Value
When the buyer's perceived cost drops below 0 he will buy, no matter what the real cost is. You can drop the perceived cost by reducing sale price, reducing hassle of purchase and ownership, and/or increasing the perceived value. You can only reduce the price so much before it costs more to produce that you can expect to make. You can only reduce the hassle so much before it negatively affects perceived value.
Some people only see value in things they buy, while some people only see value in things they get for free. Managing perceived value is the hardest thing a content producer must do. Mismanaging the perceived value of a product can be devastating. Just look at the debacle Metallica created by working hard to shut down Napster and the resultant loss of their brand's perceived value. There are still avid anti-Metallica folks out there that won't ever buy from that band again. They have won many back, but how long has it taken and how much of a hit are they still taking now from the setback those moves created? Apple, on the other hand, is a master of managing perceived value. You cannot find an apple laptop for less than $1000 with sufficient power, screen size, keyboard, etc. yet they sell a whole lot of laptops. Their marketing department established and maintains their lead in market share for portable music players. You see white headphones and you immediately think Apple.
Perceived value is only place where the seller can act to maximize without limit. The higher one can make the perceived value, the greater the hassle buyers will accept and the higher the price the buyers will pay. iTunes is the perfect example of this, with its perceived value based on the integration with the iPod, legal issues, and breadth of catalog have made people willing to pay ~$1 for something that should be free.
This brings up the problems experienced by most industries impacted by the internet, they have a higher perceived value of their content than their users do. The internet greatly reduced the hassle factor, which should have decreased the real cost of music, video, news, etc. Instead, the great proliferation of these things also lowered their perceived value. Major players need to find ways to increase the perceived value of their product.
The first step is to define the actual product. Restaurants do not sell food, they sell the cooking ability of their chef(s) and the ease of not cooking or cleaning up. They increase the the perceived value of the meal by putting the steak on cast iron making it sizzle. Their product, then, is not the steak itself as it cannot compete on a strictly price basis with the same good prepared at home, but the experience of watching all those envious diners wishing they had a steak, too. By extension, newspapers do not sell the news, record labels do not sell music, movie studios do not sell stories on film, and publishers do not sell books. Each of these sells the experience of enjoying their "content" and then the ability to leverage their customer base for other things.
Mike has pointed this out several times on this blog, and frankly he is usually right. I find it odd, therefore, that he juxtaposes his usual stance of increasing the perceived value with some of his comments.
The first point, for example, only works so long as the content can't be replicated by others.
The first point was about the experience, not the content. If the experience cannot be replicated easily, then replicating the content doesn't matter. It's the experience that has been sold, not the content. Tapulous sold the experience of playing a game on the iPhone that couldn't be replicated because of licensing deals with bands and hardware manufacturers. They have increased the perceived value of their product by adding an artificial limitation - the iPhone. Harley Davidson did the same thing by limiting production back in the 80's, which also allowed them to increase the price of the product they made and put more effort into quality thereby increasing the perceived value of their brand. As any hardcore biker will tell you, if you don't ride a Harley, you don't really ride.
I do agree that if people are paying for "content," it's important that they get some sort of ownership and control over it, but I actually think that there's something to paying for access, depending on what that access is.
Since the point he made was access to the content and solely the content, you made his argument for him. You again argue for increasing the value of the experience by accessing the people involved in the content creation. I know that you are constantly reiterating this point, and I agree with you on it. That access, however, if just one way to increase the perceived value of the content. The folks who make it in this tumultuous time will be those who find ways to increase the perceived value of their infinite goods through finite services and public opinion.
In the US government, if a classified document is split into two separate files then neither piece is consider classified. This has caused some problems, but couldn't the argument be extended to copyright? If a time limit for fair use is legally defined, couldn't breaking each copyrighted file into smaller than fair use exemption size and sharing these fair use units rather than the whole file be legal under current copyright law? Since BitTorrent does indeed break the file(s) down into smaller chunks, could those chucnks be considered fair use if they were small enough? Additionally, if a user is downloading these chunks from multiple sources, then is any one person actually infringing?
Let's suppose that these could be valid arguments (which of course only a court case will decide). If the industry starts pushing for "copyright reform" couldn't the users push back with "copyright overhaul" asking that the whole system be rebuilt with an eye towards future proofing any laws that come out of it? Let's build a good, public and industry supported Copyright Reform Act that provides industry with opportunities to make money while protecting the consumers from that industry. Let's find a compromise that promotes the well being of most instead of lining the pockets of few.
Actually, I think this allows papers to explore different business models. Operating a nonprofit is different from running a business. I ran a museum for a year and a half and it was quite different from any other business. The non-profit foundation that owned the museum also operated two book presses. All of the foundations branches were scrutinized by the public and their large donors but the foundations endowment allowed them to run mostly autonomously. They were also a history-focused group and look at newspapers as first hand accounts of history in the making. With that mentality, potential non-profit newspapers can once again serve the greater good.
Additionally, non-profit doesn't actually mean they can't make money. It simply means they are "owned" by the public and receive certain benefits for being a public good. Besides, do we really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Middle and lower newspaper management has almost always been at odds with upper management. Those who run the day to day operations of a paper have a better feel for what the public wants and needs, and many of them will have great ideas that the upper eschalon would have poopooed because of cost. A non-profit has the option of getting donations to fund new programs and ideas that may be extremely valuable but not profitable. Non-profit newspapers may be the only way to get good investigative journalism to the fore where it belongs.
Really, traffic circles? Ever try to get out of one of those during rush hour? Just because traffic is moving doesn't mean that it's more efficient IF vehicles have to circle two or three times to get where they can safely exit the circle. The only way traffic circles work in high traffic situations is if the traffic influx can be regulated, which requires stop lights, which negates the benefits of a traffic circle.
That's what I was going to say. Once people get used to the longer yellow light there will be more red light runners leading to a call for more red light traffic cams.
Seems like Doug Merrill now has the perfect opportunity to show EMI, WMG, et al what's what in the new distribution system. Since he now has a year of "music industry" experience he should have enough contacts to draw personnel from EMI and others to start a company. This company being headed by progressive thinkers instead of lawyers could be just what the music industry needs to see they need to change or perish. I hope he does something with this, and Mike I hope you can help him. Maybe you should mention it at the next music conference you go to.
Right on, slackr. The world has moved to the point where we try to offload all our responsibilities, be it parenting, governing, or just plain thinking a problem through. Too many people have "microwave attention spans" where if a solution doesn't present itself within 2 minutes, they assume they know it and move on.
On the post: If Downloading A Song Is Just Like Stealing A CD, Why Won't The RIAA Allow Reselling MP3s?
Re: Why didn't I think of that?
On the post: Playing Music In A Nightclub Just Got Ridiculously More Expensive In Australia
What a great opportunity for local artists
On the post: Senator Orrin Hatch... And The Lies The Copyright Industry Tells
My estimate of P2P traffic
Now everyone can say they have heard some estimates that refute this.
On the post: DJs Buy Their Own Music Online With Stolen Credit Cards To Grab Royalties
Re:
On the post: DJs Buy Their Own Music Online With Stolen Credit Cards To Grab Royalties
Re:
On the post: When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?
Re:
On the post: Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website
Yeah, but...
So a lawyer was not truly representing the facts in a case, a judge, whose job it is to discern the truth, had to go around the standard judicial proceedings to find the truth of the matter. Sounds like he was trying to do his job. He could still have used the web to research the situation and influence his decision without getting "personally" involved.
That said, he was out of line for friending only one of the lawyers. If both lawyers were not on fb then he should not have friended either. I've always thought the term "friend" was overused on any social site. I have a lot more acquaintances and people I barely knew in high school than actual friends on fb, but they are all called friends.
On the post: Ask Jim Griffin Questions About Choruss... Along With My Concerns About It
Re: my question
On the post: Nettwerk Testing Its 'Pay On The Way Out' Concerts
Re: Can't work
Additionally, you can't force people to line up to exit. Someone will eventually try to claim felonious or unlawful restraint and try to take all the money the band made and then some.
On the post: The Importance Of Realizing Your Content Is Probably Available Online For Free
Re:
On the post: So Only When Piracy Gets Really Bad Will Record Labels Change Their Act?
Re: Re: Re: market descends into anarchy
On the post: Three Checkboxes To Get People To Pay For Content?
Sell the sizzle, not the steak
The guy missed a few points in his article, not the least of which was the opportunity to talk to someone who has been successful and see if his hunch played out. He also missed the crucial factor of perception in his equation:
When the buyer's perceived cost drops below 0 he will buy, no matter what the real cost is. You can drop the perceived cost by reducing sale price, reducing hassle of purchase and ownership, and/or increasing the perceived value. You can only reduce the price so much before it costs more to produce that you can expect to make. You can only reduce the hassle so much before it negatively affects perceived value.
Some people only see value in things they buy, while some people only see value in things they get for free. Managing perceived value is the hardest thing a content producer must do. Mismanaging the perceived value of a product can be devastating. Just look at the debacle Metallica created by working hard to shut down Napster and the resultant loss of their brand's perceived value. There are still avid anti-Metallica folks out there that won't ever buy from that band again. They have won many back, but how long has it taken and how much of a hit are they still taking now from the setback those moves created? Apple, on the other hand, is a master of managing perceived value. You cannot find an apple laptop for less than $1000 with sufficient power, screen size, keyboard, etc. yet they sell a whole lot of laptops. Their marketing department established and maintains their lead in market share for portable music players. You see white headphones and you immediately think Apple.
Perceived value is only place where the seller can act to maximize without limit. The higher one can make the perceived value, the greater the hassle buyers will accept and the higher the price the buyers will pay. iTunes is the perfect example of this, with its perceived value based on the integration with the iPod, legal issues, and breadth of catalog have made people willing to pay ~$1 for something that should be free.
This brings up the problems experienced by most industries impacted by the internet, they have a higher perceived value of their content than their users do. The internet greatly reduced the hassle factor, which should have decreased the real cost of music, video, news, etc. Instead, the great proliferation of these things also lowered their perceived value. Major players need to find ways to increase the perceived value of their product.
The first step is to define the actual product. Restaurants do not sell food, they sell the cooking ability of their chef(s) and the ease of not cooking or cleaning up. They increase the the perceived value of the meal by putting the steak on cast iron making it sizzle. Their product, then, is not the steak itself as it cannot compete on a strictly price basis with the same good prepared at home, but the experience of watching all those envious diners wishing they had a steak, too. By extension, newspapers do not sell the news, record labels do not sell music, movie studios do not sell stories on film, and publishers do not sell books. Each of these sells the experience of enjoying their "content" and then the ability to leverage their customer base for other things.
Mike has pointed this out several times on this blog, and frankly he is usually right. I find it odd, therefore, that he juxtaposes his usual stance of increasing the perceived value with some of his comments.
The first point was about the experience, not the content. If the experience cannot be replicated easily, then replicating the content doesn't matter. It's the experience that has been sold, not the content. Tapulous sold the experience of playing a game on the iPhone that couldn't be replicated because of licensing deals with bands and hardware manufacturers. They have increased the perceived value of their product by adding an artificial limitation - the iPhone. Harley Davidson did the same thing by limiting production back in the 80's, which also allowed them to increase the price of the product they made and put more effort into quality thereby increasing the perceived value of their brand. As any hardcore biker will tell you, if you don't ride a Harley, you don't really ride.
Since the point he made was access to the content and solely the content, you made his argument for him. You again argue for increasing the value of the experience by accessing the people involved in the content creation. I know that you are constantly reiterating this point, and I agree with you on it. That access, however, if just one way to increase the perceived value of the content. The folks who make it in this tumultuous time will be those who find ways to increase the perceived value of their infinite goods through finite services and public opinion.
On the post: Austalian ISP Stands Up For Users In Court -- Claims They're Not Violating Copyright
may be some validity to this
Let's suppose that these could be valid arguments (which of course only a court case will decide). If the industry starts pushing for "copyright reform" couldn't the users push back with "copyright overhaul" asking that the whole system be rebuilt with an eye towards future proofing any laws that come out of it? Let's build a good, public and industry supported Copyright Reform Act that provides industry with opportunities to make money while protecting the consumers from that industry. Let's find a compromise that promotes the well being of most instead of lining the pockets of few.
On the post: Senator's Solution To Dying Newspapers: Become A Non-Profit
Re: Objectivity
Additionally, non-profit doesn't actually mean they can't make money. It simply means they are "owned" by the public and receive certain benefits for being a public good. Besides, do we really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Middle and lower newspaper management has almost always been at odds with upper management. Those who run the day to day operations of a paper have a better feel for what the public wants and needs, and many of them will have great ideas that the upper eschalon would have poopooed because of cost. A non-profit has the option of getting donations to fund new programs and ideas that may be extremely valuable but not profitable. Non-profit newspapers may be the only way to get good investigative journalism to the fore where it belongs.
On the post: Cities Upset That Increasing Yellow Light Time Length Reduces 'Revenue'
Re: Traffic circles!
On the post: Cities Upset That Increasing Yellow Light Time Length Reduces 'Revenue'
Re: Wonder what happens...
On the post: So Much For That Plan: Google CIO Doesn't Even Last A Year At EMI
perfect opportunity
On the post: Imitate Someone On Craigslist, Get Arrested For Identity Fraud
this is copyright infringement!!
On the post: NZ Censor Threatens To Jail Parents Who Buy Violent Video Games For Kids
Re: Re:
On the post: NZ Censor Threatens To Jail Parents Who Buy Violent Video Games For Kids
Next >>