Paywalls mean that fewer people see the notices. That means that the notices are worth less to the families. Generally, if people don't see notices on a daily basis themselves, they are not going to think the notices are important.
I wonder if the business plans that say paywalls are a good idea take into account lost revenue from sources like death notices and advertising.
Re: Re: Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
>>So is it the collection groups or the technology that makes streaming CC and public domain music so expensive?
The technology is cheap. The collection societies have a huge tax that has to be paid, even if you only stream music that the artist wants to have distributed freely. Sound Exchange charges a significant entry fee to get into the streaming business, and high rates after that. Businesses like Pandora were becoming very successful, but the fees have driven them to the brink of shutting down.
The problem is that the gaming platforms treat the hardware as a Loss Leader. The console is usually sold at or below cost in the expectation that players will be locked into buying overpriced games.
The real threat to Sony was that alternative gaming environments were starting to form. Running Linux on your system meant that there could be people supplying games and not paying Sony royalties.
>>nobody else has put forward a reliable system that can get exposure to artists in a way that can be repeated.
Actually, from the musician's standpoint the traditional recording contract model is not a repeatable model. I assume by "repeatable model" you mean that there are a set of rules or guidelines like "You successfully do X, Y, and Z and you are successful." Getting a recording contract is at best a turkey shoot from the musician's perspective. There are plenty of good bands that have done all the right things to get noticed, but they do not happen to fall into a niche that some record exec thinks they need at the moment.
From the record label's perspective, the old model has been highly repeatable, which is why they are so devoted to preserving it. The labels are very worried that artists will find a new model that works for them and reduces the need for middlemen. The one thing the industry does not want to do is compete for artists.
Much the same argument was made about the "Studio System" that the movie industry used to use. The industry argued that actors could not find work just by going from job to job; they needed the studios to provide them with a steady stream of work. The funny thing is that getting rid of the studio system helped both the artists and the studios. Maybe the labels will get lucky and the same thing will happen here. Twenty years from now we may look back on the label system in the same way we look back at the studio system.
Actually, between the RIAA and the collection societies, it would be more accurate to say "Musicians Can Make Money Despite the RIAA."
The collection societies have made it very hard for young musicians to find venues. Streaming music, even if it is in the public domain, costs too much to make it easy for emerging artists to get their music heard. The recording industry controls the radio market well enough that new musicians are shut out of the medium that has been the #1 marketing form for decades. If you do manage to get a contract, the recording industry makes sure that you are unlikely to see a penny of the money that comes from album sales.
Robert X. Cringely was a column on InfoWorld for years. Note that it was a column, not a columnist. It poked fun at the IT industry and the mythical Cringely himself. I hadn't thought about the column for years, but I strongly suspect it was a tongue-in-cheek effort by someone who is not Robert X. Cringely.
The Exchange will probably get closer to the predictions of social networks because the people who are really serious at playing the exchanges will probably start incorporating social network-based predictions into their buy-sell decisions.
I have had the same problem with a store (Walgreen's) refusing to print my pictures because they were "too good."
This raises another question, though. Who judges "too good?" In my case the pictures in question were definitely not what I would consider professional quality; at best they were somewhat better than the blue-haired lady in front of me was picking up.
Perhaps the secret is to stick in some blurry pictures or put my thumb over the lens in a few of them.
This is unlikely to change much in the long run. Blockbuster will continue its decline. The few extra rentals BB gets won't save it. And of course, Warner will continue to look foolish for embracing a backward-looking strategy.
There is a short-term metric and a long-term metric that come to mind.
Long term:
1 divided by the number of patents filed.
Basically, if more patents are filed now, then it will be harder to innovate in the future. Also, as noted in the article, the most innovative companies seem to file the fewest patents. If more patents are being filed, it means that companies are probably spending too much time filing patents and not enough time innovating.
Short term:
1 divided by the number of patent lawsuits filed.
As noted many times before, companies that can't innovate litigate. A rise in the number of lawsuits filed indicates the number of companies that have given up on their own innovation and who want to stifle innovation by others.
This is much different than just reversing the Nike logo. If someone did that, they would obviously be trying to confuse people who are looking for Nike products and fool them into buying their knock-offs. That is exactly the purpose of trademark law. Nike would win without question.
In this case South Butt is not trying to confuse people. In fact, they are doing quite the opposite and making fun of themselves as well as the whole yuppiness factor that is embodied in the North Face product line.
Isn't it obvious that the gyro is there to control the phone? If there is a hardware invention to control the phone, then it seems to me that software used to implement the hardware should be obvious.
I guess that is why I don't work for the patent office.
Supposedly this type of counterfeiting is exactly what ACTA is supposed to combat. This model seems like a much better market-based solution that a bunch of unenforceable treaties.
The problem is that this model also requires companies to act counter to modern corporate-think. For one thing, the companies have to recognized that the market is not a zero-sum game. Current corporate think says that there is a fixed sized market, and every knockoff purchased is a lost sale. The reality is that there are two markets, and the sum of the two markets is much larger than just the high end segment.
It also requires risk taking and competition in the bare-knuckled world of knockoff production. Modern executives will do almost anything to avoid taking risks or getting their hands dirty by operating in a competitive market.
>>If they put their mind to it then they can produce compelling products online which people will pay for.
Lots of people wanting to put up paywalls forget about the part of the formula that says, "If...they can produce compelling products online."
The formula a lot of newspapers seem to be using is "let's do what we are doing now and put a paywall around it." That is not a compelling reason when what they are doing now is available for free elsewhere. At a minimum there has to be a Reason to Buy.
On the post: The Future Of Print: Better Connect With Your Audience
The hardest thing
On the post: Newspapers' Revenue Plan: If Lots Of People Used To Give Us A Little, We'll Now Get A Few People To Give Us A Lot!
How much are the notices worth?
I wonder if the business plans that say paywalls are a good idea take into account lost revenue from sources like death notices and advertising.
On the post: RIAA Insists That Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
Re: Re: Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
The technology is cheap. The collection societies have a huge tax that has to be paid, even if you only stream music that the artist wants to have distributed freely. Sound Exchange charges a significant entry fee to get into the streaming business, and high rates after that. Businesses like Pandora were becoming very successful, but the fees have driven them to the brink of shutting down.
On the post: PS3 Owner Given Refund After Sony Makes PS3 Less Useful
Loss Leader
The real threat to Sony was that alternative gaming environments were starting to form. Running Linux on your system meant that there could be people supplying games and not paying Sony royalties.
On the post: RIAA Insists That Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
Re: Re: brand name recognition etc.
Actually, from the musician's standpoint the traditional recording contract model is not a repeatable model. I assume by "repeatable model" you mean that there are a set of rules or guidelines like "You successfully do X, Y, and Z and you are successful." Getting a recording contract is at best a turkey shoot from the musician's perspective. There are plenty of good bands that have done all the right things to get noticed, but they do not happen to fall into a niche that some record exec thinks they need at the moment.
From the record label's perspective, the old model has been highly repeatable, which is why they are so devoted to preserving it. The labels are very worried that artists will find a new model that works for them and reduces the need for middlemen. The one thing the industry does not want to do is compete for artists.
Much the same argument was made about the "Studio System" that the movie industry used to use. The industry argued that actors could not find work just by going from job to job; they needed the studios to provide them with a steady stream of work. The funny thing is that getting rid of the studio system helped both the artists and the studios. Maybe the labels will get lucky and the same thing will happen here. Twenty years from now we may look back on the label system in the same way we look back at the studio system.
On the post: RIAA Insists That Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
The collection societies have made it very hard for young musicians to find venues. Streaming music, even if it is in the public domain, costs too much to make it easy for emerging artists to get their music heard. The recording industry controls the radio market well enough that new musicians are shut out of the medium that has been the #1 marketing form for decades. If you do manage to get a contract, the recording industry makes sure that you are unlikely to see a penny of the money that comes from album sales.
On the post: Classical Orchestras Are Trying Out CwF+RtB Too
Everything old is new again
On the post: While Newspapers Threaten To Ban Google News, This Journalist Begs To Get In
Pseudonym?
On the post: Twitter Could Be A Good Predictor Of Box Office Sales
Convergence
On the post: UK House Of Commons On Digital Economy Bill: We'll Approve Now, Debate Later?
Elections May 6?
On the post: UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe
Same problem
This raises another question, though. Who judges "too good?" In my case the pictures in question were definitely not what I would consider professional quality; at best they were somewhat better than the blue-haired lady in front of me was picking up.
Perhaps the secret is to stick in some blurry pictures or put my thumb over the lens in a few of them.
On the post: Blockbuster Using Its Deal With Warner Bros. To Mock Redbox And Netflix
No help
On the post: Online Communities Patented; Lawsuit Against Facebook Moves Forward
On the post: Can We Come Up With A Better Way To Measure Innovation?
It's easy
Long term:
1 divided by the number of patents filed.
Basically, if more patents are filed now, then it will be harder to innovate in the future. Also, as noted in the article, the most innovative companies seem to file the fewest patents. If more patents are being filed, it means that companies are probably spending too much time filing patents and not enough time innovating.
Short term:
1 divided by the number of patent lawsuits filed.
As noted many times before, companies that can't innovate litigate. A rise in the number of lawsuits filed indicates the number of companies that have given up on their own innovation and who want to stifle innovation by others.
On the post: North Face Lawyers Try To Drag South Butt Family Through The Mud
Re: Mike, don't be disingenuous
In this case South Butt is not trying to confuse people. In fact, they are doing quite the opposite and making fun of themselves as well as the whole yuppiness factor that is embodied in the North Face product line.
On the post: Smart Phone Motion Control Patented; Held By Shell Company
Isn't this obvious
I guess that is why I don't work for the patent office.
On the post: Warner Bros. Latest Movie Release Strategy? Confuse The Hell Out Of The Market And Prop Up Blockbuster?
On the post: Google, Facebook Sued Because Without Some Random Patent No One Would Ever Access A Social Network From A Mobile Phone
Taking on Google?
On the post: Indian Cricket Team Owner Plans Cheaper Line Of Jerseys To Compete With Knockoffs
ACTA
The problem is that this model also requires companies to act counter to modern corporate-think. For one thing, the companies have to recognized that the market is not a zero-sum game. Current corporate think says that there is a fixed sized market, and every knockoff purchased is a lost sale. The reality is that there are two markets, and the sum of the two markets is much larger than just the high end segment.
It also requires risk taking and competition in the bare-knuckled world of knockoff production. Modern executives will do almost anything to avoid taking risks or getting their hands dirty by operating in a competitive market.
On the post: FT Boss: Positive Thinking And Balls Are The Secrets To A Successful Paywall
RtB
Lots of people wanting to put up paywalls forget about the part of the formula that says, "If...they can produce compelling products online."
The formula a lot of newspapers seem to be using is "let's do what we are doing now and put a paywall around it." That is not a compelling reason when what they are doing now is available for free elsewhere. At a minimum there has to be a Reason to Buy.
Next >>