Huh? Step 4 is Profit.
You messed it up. You really need to learn your interwebs.
I will refer you to the Wikipedia article (link) on the Gnomes. Specifically the screen capture at the top of the article that clearly shows step 3 as being profit. There is no step 4.
No, kicking people off the internet won't make THEM buy more music, but it might encourage some others to reconsider how they get their music.
That is really the most asinine statement I have ever read. Kicking your best fans (remember, the biggest pirates also tend to spend the most real money) off the internet will not get those other people to spend more. It will just piss of your biggest sources of revenue.
Plus the idea that you can punish someone by kicking them off the internet for nothing more than ACCUSATIONS goes against the normal way punishments are handed out.
Ridiculing an idea because you aren't able to understand cause and effect is just silly.
That part was very well said. It's too bad you are too oblivious to see how it applies to you.
A lockpick manufacturer is not liable when his lockpicks are used to break into a house. The person who writes the directions for the lockpicks is not liable. The only person liable is the person who actually broke into the house. It is the same idea in this situation.
AC, did you really think you were stating something new with your comment? You pretty much repeated what Mike said. He said that while some people use it for the purpose of accessing unauthorized internet service, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hack a cable modem.
Derek, the point is this: If only 10% say they download, but really 20% do, the numbers change dramatically. If that second group doesn't want to admit to downloading, and also doesn't buy any music, they doubly screw the numbers up.
So here you make the completely fallacious assumption that every person who didn't admit to downloading is also not buying anything. You offer no proof to back up that claim, you just assume it to be the case. Yet the data that is available goes against that claim.
If 50% of the non downloaders are also not music fans (don't buy ever), then the remaining 50% actually spend 66 pun on music, not 33. Suddenly there isn't much of a gap.
Again, you completely make up an idea, assume it to be fact, then show how your "facts" affect the data. Very poor logic.
Don't tell that to Mike - he has pretty much categorically denied that the top music fans are also the top buyers. Plus, we have no clue how much they would spend if they didn't have so much free music to start with. Perhaps they would spend half, or maybe spend double. We don't know.
Rabid music fans are Mike's Unicorn. He claims they don't exist. It's a Masnick law, I guess.
And here you show your inability to comprehend what you read. Mike has stated, numerous times, that he thinks people who download lots of music (top fans) also spend lots on music. He has never categorically denied that, in fact he has stated it over and over again.
Also, if you say that you don't know how much those rabid fans would spend if there weren't so much free music available, then how do you justify the numbers that RIAA is always putting out claiming every song downloaded is a "lost sale".
Good argument, except that you can rent those movies 6 months later for a couple of bucks, saving you 95% of the cost. Your $1 redbox rental, 4 people in the room just cost you each 12.5 cents per hour.
Sorry, but the argument is weak.
Except that six months later I have completely forgotten about that movie that I may have originally been interested in, so they get nothing from me.
Well, allowing the public to see the source code will still create the benefit of having a lot more eyes on it, thereby allowing people to make suggestions for how it could be improved. It may not actually be open source, but it is still a step in the right direction.
I am also not surprised that they are doing it only for one machine at first. They are experimenting to see if it actually creates any advantages for them. I'm sure that if it does then we will see them follow this approach (and maybe even make it actually open source) for more machines in the future.
It may be a long way from ideal, but at least they are heading the right way.
Is it possible that one must receive a full lobotomy to lead or provide legal council to an industry association?
"Good news! You have made it through the interview process and we have decided that you are the most qualified candidate for the position. Now if you will please sit in this chair and lean your head back while we insert this ice pick...."
Last time I checked the book publishers set the price that they sell the books to the distributors, distributors set the price that they sell to the stores, and stores set the price that they sell to consumers. When publishers try to say what price the stores can sell to the consumers it is known as Price Fixing and is illegal. They can recommend a price (MSRP), but they cannot force the store to sell the book for any particular price.
Now if the stores are able to sell a book for $10, why does it matter to the Publisher? The publisher is receiving the same amount of money when they sell to the distributor regardless of what price the store ends up selling the book to the consumer for.
...and they did a good job of finding a system that works well and gives people a reason to pay. People that choose not to pay still get full access to the content. It's a drastically different model from the approach the movie industry has been doing.
The point is that the movie industries current windowing model is showing it's weaknesses, and it appears that one of the proposed solutions is to create further windowing. This does not seem to make very much business sense. One of the key reasons for this is that it causes marketing funds to be less efficient: A typical Hollywood film's budget is composed of more than 1/3 marketing (source). Much of this marketing budget is used to create excitement for the film in preparation for it's release in theaters. For many people, the marketing works and gets them interested in the film, but they are unable to see the movie in the theater for various reasons. With numerous entertainment choices vying for peoples attention, today's hot movie becomes yesterdays old news very quickly. By the time the movie is available for home viewing the excitement has worn off, and many people who would have bought a DVD, paid for a Download, or Paid for a rental during the initial marketing blitz are no longer interested. Based on that, it does not appear that increased windowing is a very good solution.
You can say "windowing is windowing" all you want, but that doesn't offer a solution to the movie industry's problem. The comparison you make to Techdirt's Crystal Ball is irrelevant to the discussion of what the Movie industry should do to solve their business model problems.
The issue of weather Techdirt's Crystal Ball offering constitutes a release window is really irrelevant to this issue anyway. Even if you call the Crystal Ball offering a release window, the structure is drastically different from the movie industry's release window system.
The issue is that the structure that the movie industry has chosen for their release windows is not a very sound business tactic. Based on the comments above it appears that the release window structure that the Movie industry has chosen has cost them many sales. So their solution is more release windows? I really don't see the logic in that.
The difference is that promoting progress is the enabler for copyright in the constitution. That is to say, the government is allowed to enact copyright laws for that purpose.
That may have been their intention, but the laws are now being abused in order to hinder that purpose.
Once I have a CD, I needn't worry about backing up any MP3s I rip from it, and I have some words and pictures that add value as well.If I don't care for any of that, and can't be bothered with storing the item in such a way that I can have access when needed, I can take it to an indie music shop and trade it for something else or sell it outright, so it still has a value. (somewhere far south of $16.98, but still a value)
Except that the RIAA says that what you describe is also copyright infringement. According to them if you sell, give away, or even have the original CD stolen from you, then you no longer have the right to the MP3s that you made from it.
Just because you release the content in the same format later for free does not suddenly change the fact that you have a release window.
You have once again shown your ability to not pay attention. So I will re-quote Mike's response regarding that: "The crystal ball let's some people -- who want it -- get a brief insider's view of the process by which we work on stories."
Do you get it now? It's not the content in the same format at all. It's more like getting to watch a movie in the process of being made.
At one store I worked in for a while, there was one employee who was always playing music I liked.
Oh no!!! They were playing music in the store? Did they pay their public performance licensing fees? You know that every song they played cost the music industry 325 trillion dollars. By not paying they are supporting raporism!!
Even if time was equal to productivity the study still wouldn't make any sense because it seems to make the poor assumption that people are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time. I am actually on the phone right now as I type this. I am getting work done and posting a comment at the same time.
On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy
Re: Re: It's the Media Gnomes
You messed it up. You really need to learn your interwebs.
I will refer you to the Wikipedia article (link) on the Gnomes. Specifically the screen capture at the top of the article that clearly shows step 3 as being profit. There is no step 4.
On the post: Attacks On File Sharing Simply Drive People Further Underground
Re: Fewer people....
On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy
Re:
That is really the most asinine statement I have ever read. Kicking your best fans (remember, the biggest pirates also tend to spend the most real money) off the internet will not get those other people to spend more. It will just piss of your biggest sources of revenue.
Plus the idea that you can punish someone by kicking them off the internet for nothing more than ACCUSATIONS goes against the normal way punishments are handed out.
Ridiculing an idea because you aren't able to understand cause and effect is just silly.
That part was very well said. It's too bad you are too oblivious to see how it applies to you.
On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy
It's the Media Gnomes
Step 1) Kick File sharers off the internet
Step 2) ..........
Step 3) Profit!!
On the post: Guy Who Helped Mod Cable Modems Arrested By The FBI
Re: Re: Re: AC
On the post: Guy Who Helped Mod Cable Modems Arrested By The FBI
Re: AC
On the post: Yet Another (Yes, Another) Study Shows File Sharers Buy More
Re: Re: Re:
So here you make the completely fallacious assumption that every person who didn't admit to downloading is also not buying anything. You offer no proof to back up that claim, you just assume it to be the case. Yet the data that is available goes against that claim.
If 50% of the non downloaders are also not music fans (don't buy ever), then the remaining 50% actually spend 66 pun on music, not 33. Suddenly there isn't much of a gap.
Again, you completely make up an idea, assume it to be fact, then show how your "facts" affect the data. Very poor logic.
Don't tell that to Mike - he has pretty much categorically denied that the top music fans are also the top buyers. Plus, we have no clue how much they would spend if they didn't have so much free music to start with. Perhaps they would spend half, or maybe spend double. We don't know.
Rabid music fans are Mike's Unicorn. He claims they don't exist. It's a Masnick law, I guess.
And here you show your inability to comprehend what you read. Mike has stated, numerous times, that he thinks people who download lots of music (top fans) also spend lots on music. He has never categorically denied that, in fact he has stated it over and over again.
Also, if you say that you don't know how much those rabid fans would spend if there weren't so much free music available, then how do you justify the numbers that RIAA is always putting out claiming every song downloaded is a "lost sale".
On the post: Internet Hating Sony Pictures CEO Insists Piracy Is Killing Movie Business; But Facts Show Otherwise
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but the argument is weak.
Except that six months later I have completely forgotten about that movie that I may have originally been interested in, so they get nothing from me.
On the post: Surprise: Sequoia To Open Source E-voting Code
Re: Open Source - Not
I am also not surprised that they are doing it only for one machine at first. They are experimenting to see if it actually creates any advantages for them. I'm sure that if it does then we will see them follow this approach (and maybe even make it actually open source) for more machines in the future.
It may be a long way from ideal, but at least they are heading the right way.
On the post: Booksellers Claiming That Competition And Lower Prices Are Bad For Consumers
Re: Muahahahaaa
"Good news! You have made it through the interview process and we have decided that you are the most qualified candidate for the position. Now if you will please sit in this chair and lean your head back while we insert this ice pick...."
On the post: Booksellers Claiming That Competition And Lower Prices Are Bad For Consumers
Re:
Now if the stores are able to sell a book for $10, why does it matter to the Publisher? The publisher is receiving the same amount of money when they sell to the distributor regardless of what price the store ends up selling the book to the consumer for.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTB
The point is that the movie industries current windowing model is showing it's weaknesses, and it appears that one of the proposed solutions is to create further windowing. This does not seem to make very much business sense. One of the key reasons for this is that it causes marketing funds to be less efficient: A typical Hollywood film's budget is composed of more than 1/3 marketing (source). Much of this marketing budget is used to create excitement for the film in preparation for it's release in theaters. For many people, the marketing works and gets them interested in the film, but they are unable to see the movie in the theater for various reasons. With numerous entertainment choices vying for peoples attention, today's hot movie becomes yesterdays old news very quickly. By the time the movie is available for home viewing the excitement has worn off, and many people who would have bought a DVD, paid for a Download, or Paid for a rental during the initial marketing blitz are no longer interested. Based on that, it does not appear that increased windowing is a very good solution.
You can say "windowing is windowing" all you want, but that doesn't offer a solution to the movie industry's problem. The comparison you make to Techdirt's Crystal Ball is irrelevant to the discussion of what the Movie industry should do to solve their business model problems.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTB
The issue is that the structure that the movie industry has chosen for their release windows is not a very sound business tactic. Based on the comments above it appears that the release window structure that the Movie industry has chosen has cost them many sales. So their solution is more release windows? I really don't see the logic in that.
On the post: Latest Bogus DMCA Takedown Sent By NPR?
Re: Re: Not how it works
That may have been their intention, but the laws are now being abused in order to hinder that purpose.
On the post: On The Media Takes On The Music Industry
Re:
Except that the RIAA says that what you describe is also copyright infringement. According to them if you sell, give away, or even have the original CD stolen from you, then you no longer have the right to the MP3s that you made from it.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals
Re: Re: Re: RTB
You have once again shown your ability to not pay attention. So I will re-quote Mike's response regarding that: "The crystal ball let's some people -- who want it -- get a brief insider's view of the process by which we work on stories."
Do you get it now? It's not the content in the same format at all. It's more like getting to watch a movie in the process of being made.
On the post: On The Media Takes On The Music Industry
Re: "stolen"...
Oh no!!! They were playing music in the store? Did they pay their public performance licensing fees? You know that every song they played cost the music industry 325 trillion dollars. By not paying they are supporting raporism!!
On the post: On The Media Takes On The Music Industry
Re: Re: Re: Don't give me your "facts"
On the post: On The Media Takes On The Music Industry
Re: Re: Don't give me your "facts"
DH:Then truth is a subjective, stupid thing that need not be considered when discussing reality...
He was quoting one of Glenn Beck's more idiotic statements. My personal favorite is "Believe in something, even if it's wrong. Believe in it!"
On the post: No, Twitter Use Is Not Costing Companies Billions
Even if time was equal to productivity...
Next >>