Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: more drivel from the f-ing idiot TAM
RD, it doesn't matter what I post, because you don't read it. You add words, sentences, and ideas, and claim they are mine, but they are not. I can tell you the same thing 10 times, and you choose to ignore it.
You are a classic.
If you cannot have a discussion without making stuff up about me, why should I discuss anything with you?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
All that, and you avoided the simple question:
"Maybe it is fair use, maybe it isn't. Why would Viacom want to fight it? Why would the producer of the show risk wasting a night worth of recording because part of the show can't be used?"
If you can't answer that, it is proof you never have run a business.
I think this is just more fuel on the free for all file sharing that will likely take over Australia, at least until the censorship people find out that you can sneak all sorts of naughty stuff past the censors when you use torrents.
First off, let me say it's my opinion. The movie isn't out, I have seen it, I am basing my opinion on how they are marketing the movie and the trailer(s) that are out there.
I watched a trailer, and I have to say that the story didn't seem particularly well explained. IMDB does a much better job of explaining the movie than the trailer did.
Further, horror / devil movies tend to be a little more narrow a field than average. There are plenty of these sorts of movies that have a very short run in the theaters, they seem to do better after the fact on DVD (people perhaps don't want others to see them scared or something). While I don't think this is a pure horror movie in any sense, I don't see it as a date movie either, which is another strike against.
It would also appear it is 14 years since this guy directed a movie, and he only has a couple of noted credits in the last 10 years. It isn't clear to me that this director has a huge profile. Jim Sturgess and Timothy Spall might have a bit of a draw, but this isn't major star power, just decent actors at work. Sturgess has at least one and possible 2 films that will be around near the same time, which could also be a negative on his "star power" for the movie.
Based on the content, material, and all other other things mentioned, I suspect this is a movie that will do pretty good on DVD, it seems like a man-flick, not a date movie, something guys would enjoy at home when they have time. One weekend in theaters is likely more than enough to satisfy the public's desire, the short window to me is an indication that they don't feel they will be in the theater much longer.
Also, I can't find how wide the release is going to be. Do you have that information?
You seem to think that everyone is mean and money grubbing and just out for what they can get and stuff the next person.
Richard, if you have two tables in a shopping mall, and one says "free soda here" and the other days "Soda, $1.29", which one do you think has the line up?
Some people will pay for soda because they think they are suppose to, or the line is shorter, or they are suspicious of the free offer, but all things being equal (no line up), it is likely people will pick free.
The reason "FREE!" works even a little is because it appeals to human nature. It gets rid of all of the reasons to say no, because there is no cost. Free is the laziest sales technique in the world, because you don't have to sell the product, just the price.
I don't have a low opinion of people, I just have a great respect for human nature.
"Only 10 percent of the respondents admitted downloading music illegally from the Internet," - blorg.com
The numbers are sort of off. The real number of downloaders is likely 20% or more (even Mike admits these numbers are low). If 50% of the filesharers won't even admit to, well... it would mean that the average spent by file sharing type is half what the report comes up to.
"But the survey of 600 music fans who also own computers and mobile phones, conducted by the music research firm The Leading Question, shows that those who regularly download or share unlicensed music also spend an average of £5.52 a month on legal downloads through sites such as Apple's iTunes Music Store or Napster. Those who were not illegally filesharing spent just £1.27 a month on digital tracks." - Guardian.co.uk
No indication of the splits here. Mobiles phones are computers? Remember too, if they are "music fans" but they don't share and they don't buy, are they truly music fans, or just casual listeners?
"Ars Technica reports that researchers monitored the music download habits of 1,900 web users age 15 and above. Over time, the study found that users who downloaded music illegally from P2P file-sharing sites like BitTorrent ultimately made ten times as many legit music purchases than the law abiding users." - nturebeat.com
This study has a ton of problems. Most importantly, the non-downloaders, are they active music fans? Are they actively listening and collecting music? Or are we making the P2P user numbers sound great because the others are not in the market at all?
"Yet another study has shown that people who are more active in unauthorized file sharing, also tend to spend more on authorized entertainment purchases. Now, to be fair, the study was paid for by a file sharing provider" - techdirt.com
Umm, sort of like getting your news from techdirt, you only get half the story. You don't think maybe these people might have asked questions that got them the desired answers?
RD, I think what you miss is that anyone who is actively into music enough to spend their time looking for it should be a buyer, and should be a buyer well and beyond the average person on the street. They should be spending the money, they love music. You don't think that the average ferrari owner spends more on cars than your average Ford Focus owner? They both have cars, yet one spends way more than the other in the same category. One is a big fan, one is a casual user.
Many of those stories seem to point back all to the same study from the Independant, which reports way too low a number for file sharers. It seems a fair number of people just didn't tell the truth.
You can always find exceptions. They will exist. But the term "direct to DVD" is pretty much the kiss of death for any movie. There are any number of movies from such "stars" as Jessica Simpson that have gone direct to DVD because nobody would pay a cent to see them in a theater.
The producers of this UK movie likely have a direct to DVD movie on their hands, but you can create so much more value by being able to see it was released in theaters, you can get more reviews, more exposure, and their short windowing is maybe something the media will grab onto, giving them some extra promotion they might not otherwise see.
Having a window that short suggests that they feel they will get all of the box office business done in a short period of time, perhaps there is only a couple of million dollars to do that way for this movie (the trailer isn't all that interesting).
I think they are doing a marketing power move, which will likely net them more money than doing things otherwise, but there is little proof that this type of non-windowing would be bottom line beneficial for more popular movies.
This implications of this statement says all we need to know about your line of thinking...
Particularly in tough economic times in the west, why would people spend for what they can get for free? It is almost shocking that anyone would pay the price for movies or music anymore.
Never heard of pyschological price barriers?
I have. But I think that considering the market grew 8% anyway, it is hard to say that the price is over demand. It also gives companies and artists the choice to offer a lower price as a special.
However, I don't think the price is important, because of where their competition is at. The competition is the torrents, and their price is zero. 99 cents or a buck 29 isn't the game changer here.
Lionsgate are releasing a movie in the UK soon entitled Heartless, and then releasing the VoD, Blu-Ray and DVD just 3 days afterwards.
I would suspect that the movie will be a one weekend wonder, released on thursday, running through Sunday, and then disappearing. It's just short of being direct to DVD, which is pretty much the kiss of death for major movies.
I don't think it is servicing both markets as much as they may have "bought" a release slot just to avoid having the movie be direct to DVD.
When I talk about experience, I was referring to the "movie going experience", which in theory is what drags people to pay $10 a ticket to see a movie instead of waiting and watching it at home.
In your case, your experience could happen anywhere. Obviously, as movies can be pirated and made widely available for free, there is no reason to have theaters anymore. In fact, anyone paying to see a movie is a fool, as the product is out there for nothing.
Now all we need to do is explain to people why they are fools, and the entire movie industry will be saved.
t's difficult to believe that the digital music market has reached the point of maturity yet.
Can you find anyone under 30 who doesn't know how to get a torrent file of music? Why the heck would they spend money when they can so easily infringe and get something for free, saving their money for something else?
What you are seeing Mike I think isn't a question of the price going up, as much as the true limits of the digital music online as a business. Plenty of people here have said they wouldn't pay much more than a few pennies a song. The difference between 0.99 and 1.29 isn't enough to turn people away.
It is likely that the total size of the commercial digital music field is way smaller that you think. The potential size is huge, but the actual market of people willing to pay a reasonable price for music is nil.
After all, to follow your logic, music in infinite. Infinite goods have no price. The only thing keeping digital music in the game in theory is some sort of convenience, but most users can download a torrent in seconds. Cutting the price in half wouldn't change that very much, would it?
The only thing I can think of is as the users have learned to not pay for music, it won't be long before the small band of people who have been buying the scarce goods wake up and realize they don't need to do that either. Perhaps they will own too many t-shirts, or run out of shelf space for autographed books, or not have enough time to schedule one more miniputt game.
But you DO THAT by OFFERING SOMETHING SCARCE. That's the only way that you can charge above marginal cost.
I mean, come on, seriously. It's stunning how badly you fail econ.
it's why I can disagree with you for a long time Mike. You didn't answer the question in econ terms, you answered it in Mike terms. It is how you see things working in the future, not how the real world works.
You make the basic assumption that something is not scarce, yet it almost always is. You are suggesting that for decades people have paid for music that isn't scarce, like idiots.
Music and movies are only "non scarce" because people are pirating them. Otherwise, they would be as scarce as always. It is pretty insane to base a business model on widespread piracy, no?
Would you care to explain to the class what econ 101 says when your retail price is below your average unit cost? What happens to companies who sell their products below their average unit cost?
Why would anyone knowingly continue to produce a product at a loss? You certainly cannot point a the current circumstances of the movie or music businesses, because that is the old system. Take that old system away, what is the new system doing? Nothing. Under the new system, nobody could afford to produce the content. Don't forget too that your "scarce goods" have costs, and take time, effort, and money to manage and distribute.
The scarce goods as a supplement concept only appears to work when there is a vibrant existing system to sponge off of, or as your sample band of the week showed, a system to aspire to be part of. Without it, would the new system be truly functional, or would a new version of the old system reappear, because it is a more vibrant system, one that focuses on the product the people truly value, as opposed to the products most of them don't?
As for my business, well, I repeat again, 14 years in the same business, no failures, no bankruptcy, no nothing. Sorry to disappoint you, I would have to say your comments appear to be intended to smear me more than anything.
I would say you are down to attacking me personally as opposed to ideas, which is never a good sign.
Once again, I have no corporate overlords, I don't work in the music or movie industry.
Mike often says nice thing about people, yet he characterizes the same people as buggy whip makers, people with their heads in the sand, and worse. Effecively, he looks at them the same sadness one might hold for the "slow kid" who never does quite manage to learn how to tie his shoes or write his name.
particularly quotes like this:
"suggestions on how they could create for themselves a much bigger and more successful market "
His first suggestion is that they should all go away, and take copyright and patents with them. That sounds like a good way to grow their businesses.
TAM and other trolls are hell-bent on discrediting the very person/business-model that stands even a snowball's chance in hell of saving them from the slag-heap of obsolescence and/or total ignominy.
You pretty much so the same thing, making nice noises and then calling them idiots. You might understand that they don't want advice from people who's first idea is to take them out behind the shed and put them out of their misery, right?
The trick is that bands often build up fans pre-signing in a very small area, and they are stuck. They don't have the money to expand their influence easily, without being known outside your area it is hard to get paying gigs or get to be an opening act on someone's tour, etc.
Yes, an agent can do that, sort of. Most agents don't have the influence out of their area to get anything done. Record labels are worldwide webs of connections, contacts, and promotions people.
And they when your time in the limelight is over the label loses interest and will not spend a dime promoting you because your advance is all used up. You can't sign to a different label because you're contractually bound to your first label who is under no obligation to release you.
Yet they can still play gigs, they can still do what they always did, and they can still cultivate fans. Nobody is stopping them from being musicians.
Plus, the label has already spent way more than a dime promoting you. Sorry, but if you didn't hit it this way, it is unlikely that your marginal music would have made it online either.
Label deals are all about scale and scope, which few people can handle themselves. Most acts also don't happen to have the $$$$$ on hand to get the show on the road to start with, nor do they have the contacts to get proper distribution, tour support, and all those other things that happen to a label act.
the songs you've wrote and played are owned by some conglomerate and are used to sell toothpaste.
If they are, you are likely making money, at least a song writer.
"give it away and pray DOESNT WORK!" - Mike says he doesn't like give it away and pray, for various reasons. It is a very risky way to do things.
"you cant make money with FREE!" - sort of a self evident stamement. There is no money in free. The only money is generated by other activities not related to free.
I could go on. But since you will just twist my words, why bother?
On the post: Kevin Smith May Try Crowdfunding Horror Film, Red State, After Fans Offer To Do So
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: more drivel from the f-ing idiot TAM
You are a classic.
If you cannot have a discussion without making stuff up about me, why should I discuss anything with you?
On the post: Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time, Because Viacom Couldn't Have Him Sing Four Words: 'We Are The World'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
"Maybe it is fair use, maybe it isn't. Why would Viacom want to fight it? Why would the producer of the show risk wasting a night worth of recording because part of the show can't be used?"
If you can't answer that, it is proof you never have run a business.
On the post: Australian ISP Stops Kicking People Off The Internet Following iiNet Ruling
On the post: Bollywood Movie Released On YouTube Same Day As Theatrical Release
Re: Re: Re:
I watched a trailer, and I have to say that the story didn't seem particularly well explained. IMDB does a much better job of explaining the movie than the trailer did.
Further, horror / devil movies tend to be a little more narrow a field than average. There are plenty of these sorts of movies that have a very short run in the theaters, they seem to do better after the fact on DVD (people perhaps don't want others to see them scared or something). While I don't think this is a pure horror movie in any sense, I don't see it as a date movie either, which is another strike against.
It would also appear it is 14 years since this guy directed a movie, and he only has a couple of noted credits in the last 10 years. It isn't clear to me that this director has a huge profile. Jim Sturgess and Timothy Spall might have a bit of a draw, but this isn't major star power, just decent actors at work. Sturgess has at least one and possible 2 films that will be around near the same time, which could also be a negative on his "star power" for the movie.
Based on the content, material, and all other other things mentioned, I suspect this is a movie that will do pretty good on DVD, it seems like a man-flick, not a date movie, something guys would enjoy at home when they have time. One weekend in theaters is likely more than enough to satisfy the public's desire, the short window to me is an indication that they don't feel they will be in the theater much longer.
Also, I can't find how wide the release is going to be. Do you have that information?
On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows
Re: Re: Re: Get a clue
Richard, if you have two tables in a shopping mall, and one says "free soda here" and the other days "Soda, $1.29", which one do you think has the line up?
Some people will pay for soda because they think they are suppose to, or the line is shorter, or they are suspicious of the free offer, but all things being equal (no line up), it is likely people will pick free.
The reason "FREE!" works even a little is because it appeals to human nature. It gets rid of all of the reasons to say no, because there is no cost. Free is the laziest sales technique in the world, because you don't have to sell the product, just the price.
I don't have a low opinion of people, I just have a great respect for human nature.
On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows
Re: Re: Re:
"Only 10 percent of the respondents admitted downloading music illegally from the Internet," - blorg.com
The numbers are sort of off. The real number of downloaders is likely 20% or more (even Mike admits these numbers are low). If 50% of the filesharers won't even admit to, well... it would mean that the average spent by file sharing type is half what the report comes up to.
"But the survey of 600 music fans who also own computers and mobile phones, conducted by the music research firm The Leading Question, shows that those who regularly download or share unlicensed music also spend an average of £5.52 a month on legal downloads through sites such as Apple's iTunes Music Store or Napster. Those who were not illegally filesharing spent just £1.27 a month on digital tracks." - Guardian.co.uk
No indication of the splits here. Mobiles phones are computers? Remember too, if they are "music fans" but they don't share and they don't buy, are they truly music fans, or just casual listeners?
"Ars Technica reports that researchers monitored the music download habits of 1,900 web users age 15 and above. Over time, the study found that users who downloaded music illegally from P2P file-sharing sites like BitTorrent ultimately made ten times as many legit music purchases than the law abiding users." - nturebeat.com
This study has a ton of problems. Most importantly, the non-downloaders, are they active music fans? Are they actively listening and collecting music? Or are we making the P2P user numbers sound great because the others are not in the market at all?
"Yet another study has shown that people who are more active in unauthorized file sharing, also tend to spend more on authorized entertainment purchases. Now, to be fair, the study was paid for by a file sharing provider" - techdirt.com
Umm, sort of like getting your news from techdirt, you only get half the story. You don't think maybe these people might have asked questions that got them the desired answers?
RD, I think what you miss is that anyone who is actively into music enough to spend their time looking for it should be a buyer, and should be a buyer well and beyond the average person on the street. They should be spending the money, they love music. You don't think that the average ferrari owner spends more on cars than your average Ford Focus owner? They both have cars, yet one spends way more than the other in the same category. One is a big fan, one is a casual user.
Many of those stories seem to point back all to the same study from the Independant, which reports way too low a number for file sharers. It seems a fair number of people just didn't tell the truth.
On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows
Re:
On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
Re: Re: Re: The most ironic thing.....
Back to bed with you... does your mommy know you are up so late?
On the post: Bollywood Movie Released On YouTube Same Day As Theatrical Release
Re:
The producers of this UK movie likely have a direct to DVD movie on their hands, but you can create so much more value by being able to see it was released in theaters, you can get more reviews, more exposure, and their short windowing is maybe something the media will grab onto, giving them some extra promotion they might not otherwise see.
Having a window that short suggests that they feel they will get all of the box office business done in a short period of time, perhaps there is only a couple of million dollars to do that way for this movie (the trailer isn't all that interesting).
I think they are doing a marketing power move, which will likely net them more money than doing things otherwise, but there is little proof that this type of non-windowing would be bottom line beneficial for more popular movies.
On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows
Re: Get a clue
This implications of this statement says all we need to know about your line of thinking...
Particularly in tough economic times in the west, why would people spend for what they can get for free? It is almost shocking that anyone would pay the price for movies or music anymore.
Never heard of pyschological price barriers?
I have. But I think that considering the market grew 8% anyway, it is hard to say that the price is over demand. It also gives companies and artists the choice to offer a lower price as a special.
However, I don't think the price is important, because of where their competition is at. The competition is the torrents, and their price is zero. 99 cents or a buck 29 isn't the game changer here.
On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet
On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows
Re:
On the post: Bollywood Movie Released On YouTube Same Day As Theatrical Release
Re: Re: Movie Windowing
I would suspect that the movie will be a one weekend wonder, released on thursday, running through Sunday, and then disappearing. It's just short of being direct to DVD, which is pretty much the kiss of death for major movies.
I don't think it is servicing both markets as much as they may have "bought" a release slot just to avoid having the movie be direct to DVD.
On the post: Understanding What's Scarce And What's Not...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I talk about experience, I was referring to the "movie going experience", which in theory is what drags people to pay $10 a ticket to see a movie instead of waiting and watching it at home.
In your case, your experience could happen anywhere. Obviously, as movies can be pirated and made widely available for free, there is no reason to have theaters anymore. In fact, anyone paying to see a movie is a fool, as the product is out there for nothing.
Now all we need to do is explain to people why they are fools, and the entire movie industry will be saved.
On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows
Can you find anyone under 30 who doesn't know how to get a torrent file of music? Why the heck would they spend money when they can so easily infringe and get something for free, saving their money for something else?
What you are seeing Mike I think isn't a question of the price going up, as much as the true limits of the digital music online as a business. Plenty of people here have said they wouldn't pay much more than a few pennies a song. The difference between 0.99 and 1.29 isn't enough to turn people away.
It is likely that the total size of the commercial digital music field is way smaller that you think. The potential size is huge, but the actual market of people willing to pay a reasonable price for music is nil.
After all, to follow your logic, music in infinite. Infinite goods have no price. The only thing keeping digital music in the game in theory is some sort of convenience, but most users can download a torrent in seconds. Cutting the price in half wouldn't change that very much, would it?
The only thing I can think of is as the users have learned to not pay for music, it won't be long before the small band of people who have been buying the scarce goods wake up and realize they don't need to do that either. Perhaps they will own too many t-shirts, or run out of shelf space for autographed books, or not have enough time to schedule one more miniputt game.
Can you say "give it away and pray"?
On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, come on, seriously. It's stunning how badly you fail econ.
it's why I can disagree with you for a long time Mike. You didn't answer the question in econ terms, you answered it in Mike terms. It is how you see things working in the future, not how the real world works.
You make the basic assumption that something is not scarce, yet it almost always is. You are suggesting that for decades people have paid for music that isn't scarce, like idiots.
Music and movies are only "non scarce" because people are pirating them. Otherwise, they would be as scarce as always. It is pretty insane to base a business model on widespread piracy, no?
Would you care to explain to the class what econ 101 says when your retail price is below your average unit cost? What happens to companies who sell their products below their average unit cost?
Why would anyone knowingly continue to produce a product at a loss? You certainly cannot point a the current circumstances of the movie or music businesses, because that is the old system. Take that old system away, what is the new system doing? Nothing. Under the new system, nobody could afford to produce the content. Don't forget too that your "scarce goods" have costs, and take time, effort, and money to manage and distribute.
The scarce goods as a supplement concept only appears to work when there is a vibrant existing system to sponge off of, or as your sample band of the week showed, a system to aspire to be part of. Without it, would the new system be truly functional, or would a new version of the old system reappear, because it is a more vibrant system, one that focuses on the product the people truly value, as opposed to the products most of them don't?
As for my business, well, I repeat again, 14 years in the same business, no failures, no bankruptcy, no nothing. Sorry to disappoint you, I would have to say your comments appear to be intended to smear me more than anything.
I would say you are down to attacking me personally as opposed to ideas, which is never a good sign.
On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
Re: The most ironic thing.....
Once again, I have no corporate overlords, I don't work in the music or movie industry.
Mike often says nice thing about people, yet he characterizes the same people as buggy whip makers, people with their heads in the sand, and worse. Effecively, he looks at them the same sadness one might hold for the "slow kid" who never does quite manage to learn how to tie his shoes or write his name.
particularly quotes like this:
"suggestions on how they could create for themselves a much bigger and more successful market "
His first suggestion is that they should all go away, and take copyright and patents with them. That sounds like a good way to grow their businesses.
TAM and other trolls are hell-bent on discrediting the very person/business-model that stands even a snowball's chance in hell of saving them from the slag-heap of obsolescence and/or total ignominy.
You pretty much so the same thing, making nice noises and then calling them idiots. You might understand that they don't want advice from people who's first idea is to take them out behind the shed and put them out of their misery, right?
On the post: The New Middleclass Musicians: I Fight Dragons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, an agent can do that, sort of. Most agents don't have the influence out of their area to get anything done. Record labels are worldwide webs of connections, contacts, and promotions people.
And they when your time in the limelight is over the label loses interest and will not spend a dime promoting you because your advance is all used up. You can't sign to a different label because you're contractually bound to your first label who is under no obligation to release you.
Yet they can still play gigs, they can still do what they always did, and they can still cultivate fans. Nobody is stopping them from being musicians.
Plus, the label has already spent way more than a dime promoting you. Sorry, but if you didn't hit it this way, it is unlikely that your marginal music would have made it online either.
Label deals are all about scale and scope, which few people can handle themselves. Most acts also don't happen to have the $$$$$ on hand to get the show on the road to start with, nor do they have the contacts to get proper distribution, tour support, and all those other things that happen to a label act.
the songs you've wrote and played are owned by some conglomerate and are used to sell toothpaste.
If they are, you are likely making money, at least a song writer.
On the post: Let's Face Facts: ACTA Is Called An 'Executive Agreement' To Change The Law With Less Hassle Than A Treaty
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet again
Look, just past your nose... it's reality. No, wait, it's just mike's butt.
On the post: Research Shows Unauthorized Digital Books Leads To 'Significant Jump In Sales'
Re: Re:
"you cant make money with FREE!" - sort of a self evident stamement. There is no money in free. The only money is generated by other activities not related to free.
I could go on. But since you will just twist my words, why bother?
Next >>