"And 99.99% of the working population of this planet gets paid once for a finite number of hours, not every time someone uses the result of their work."
Okay.... first, there's the minor fact that your team might spend a thousand man hours creating a game or app, leasing a game engine, doing marketing, and all that before it's done, before it's shipped, and before a single dime comes in the door.
What dollars paid hourly wages, when you had no sales and no dollars yet existed? Oh? You invested your own money? Cool.
Which leads us to the whole "risk/reward" thing. You might spend a thousand man hours making a game and sell a hundred copies. You might sell no copies. Or you might sell a million Angry Birds. The majority barely break even.
The potential upside is regarded as compensation for the potential downside, that your thousand hours will never be repaid at all.
Third, if you're the one working for an hourly wage, that was your decision. You're the one that traded the security of a steady paycheck against the possibility of a huge gain. Or a spectacular loss.
If you're on the assembly line at GM and your car does well, you "might" get a bonus. GM gets the profits, because they're the ones who designed it, and because they're the one's who risked the company's money putting the product on the market.
Finally, any profit made after recouping the original costs will probably be rolled back into funding the next game or app, again placing their dollars at risk.
That's the nature of the market, be it making movies, writing books, or writing apps. It's a crap shoot, where everything can be gained, or lost, on a single roll of the dice.
Stick to your day job, "explicit", because it's definitely not a game for cowards.
"It's sad, but again points out why stronger law enforcement online is needed."
No, it simply points out why Apple needs to modify the App Store to support trial versions and paid updates. I like the idea about not allowing "paid" software to go free, and removing functionality as described should lead to the app being pulled from the store. Adding ads after the fact should also be a no-no.
The flip side is the developer did what he did with the tools available, and we need to keep in mind that the whole mobile App Store concept is a scant 4 years old. As you point out, it's early days yet.
Because so many of us are sitting around 12 miles offshore waiting to download the latest episode of Thrones. Besides, even if you could provide some sort of proof, the US would just shrug and say it was protecting its national security interests.
Heck, just track the silly things and seize them on the ground.
"...and never took the proper time to fact check what he said in the piece before airing it."
Here's the thing: When you're a news outlet that releases dozens of stories per day, and someone comes to you with a story they supposedly spent months researching... just how much fact checking are you expecting?
Are you going to go to China and reinterview everyone they interviewed? Because at some point it's going to be just as expensive as hiring a bunch of reporters and seeking out the stories yourself.
Just curious, but how many artists are you willing to support in this fashion? Five? Ten? Twenty? How many sites are you going to seek out in order to buy a t-shirt or make a donation? And how often?
Seriously. I mean, I can see someone being a rabid fan and avidly supporting their favorite singer or group or author. I can even see some enthusiasm for the next one down on the list. But the tenth? The twentieth?
I can think of maybe two or three authors I'd be willing to see in person. Once.
At least on Amazon or iTunes every artist whose music I buy gets a cut of the proceedings. Same for books.
But how many "fans" does Wale need to make even a modest living off of donations and t-shirts? And how long will that support last?
And "copying" a character or theme or idea in order to create a new work is different than "copying" an entire movie just so you can watch it Friday night.
"... they need to start using cheaper equipment, cheaper labor, cheaper facilities..."
Yep, let's take a good product and build it using fewer designers and by hiring cheaper, less experienced engineers. Let's cut back on R&D, do less testing, and reduce costs by doing less sales and marketing...
And then let's wonder why no one buys our product any more.
It's not my "beloved RIAA". I think they're a bunch of jerks.
I simply pointed out that we currently have the ability to fairly pay a minor amount to get the aforementioned services. Enforced taxation isn't needed.
I was merely pointing out his use of "they" and "them," where he blames all of the problems on "them" and if "they" didn't want people to copy then "they" shouldn't have put the figurative gun into his hand.
And I'm willing to bet that "they" even "made" him pull the trigger...
Painting with a rather broad brush, are we not? The content industry? The ENTIRE content industry? There's no label, studio, or publisher that treats its artists and authors well? Or its customers? At all?
Huh.
How about, oh, say, Baen books, who has plenty of authors who can't say enough good things about them. Who sells DRM-free ebooks? Who gives away ebooks to their customers in their "free" library?
"Look at what works and adjust per individual situation rather than looking for the simple "Plan A" that's supposedly a be-all and end-all for every creative artist. That doesn't exist any more."
"Look, they sell tape/disc recorders, scanners, printers..."
"They" again. Look, Time Warner is not Apple. 20th Century Fox is not HP. By and large, the technology guys are not the content production guys. Sony is the rather obvious exception, but even there, the consumer electronics division is separate and distinct from the studio.
One might mention that computers, recorders, scanners, and printers can all be used to create content, not just copy it. And even copying for personal use is a different scale altogether than distributing 10,000 copies to anyone and everyone.
How about various streaming services? How about iTunes Match? Stream a song via iTunes Match, and they know THAT song was streamed, and that a royalty on that song is due that artist, to be paid out of your yearly subscription fee.
How about Spotify? $10 a month gets you unlimited streaming of music, no ads, and an offline mode for playlists. And as streams are tracked, artists earn a royalty when their music is played.
Point is, there are already inexpensive ways for people to do what you suggest.
"As it stands, they're giving people the tools to copy and distribute data and then turning around and incriminating them for doing so."
An amazing piece of logic. Tell me, who is is this mysterious "they" that gives the tools to copy and distribute "data", and then incriminates you for doing so?
I mean, I didn't realize that Time Warner distributed HandBrake and BitTorrent...
"A $100 fine for jumping the turnstile at the train station is reasonable and affordable to everyone."
Where I live dumping trash is subject to a $1,000 fine. Is that reasonable? Is that affordable to everyone?
Why $1,000 and not $100? Because it's hard to catch, hence the posted fine is letting someone know that if they do get caught, the penalty will be rather severe. Don't want to risk a $1,000 fine? Don't dump. This is known as deterrence.
Illicit file "sharing" falls into the same category. It's currently hard to catch and expensive to prosecute and prove, hence the outsized "fine."
Too much? Probably. Then again, there's a really simple way to ensure you don't hit the IP lawsuit jackpot...
On the post: Digital Distribution: Exchanging Control For Convenience
Re: Re: And you only have yourself to blame
Okay.... first, there's the minor fact that your team might spend a thousand man hours creating a game or app, leasing a game engine, doing marketing, and all that before it's done, before it's shipped, and before a single dime comes in the door.
What dollars paid hourly wages, when you had no sales and no dollars yet existed? Oh? You invested your own money? Cool.
Which leads us to the whole "risk/reward" thing. You might spend a thousand man hours making a game and sell a hundred copies. You might sell no copies. Or you might sell a million Angry Birds. The majority barely break even.
The potential upside is regarded as compensation for the potential downside, that your thousand hours will never be repaid at all.
Third, if you're the one working for an hourly wage, that was your decision. You're the one that traded the security of a steady paycheck against the possibility of a huge gain. Or a spectacular loss.
If you're on the assembly line at GM and your car does well, you "might" get a bonus. GM gets the profits, because they're the ones who designed it, and because they're the one's who risked the company's money putting the product on the market.
Finally, any profit made after recouping the original costs will probably be rolled back into funding the next game or app, again placing their dollars at risk.
That's the nature of the market, be it making movies, writing books, or writing apps. It's a crap shoot, where everything can be gained, or lost, on a single roll of the dice.
Stick to your day job, "explicit", because it's definitely not a game for cowards.
On the post: Digital Distribution: Exchanging Control For Convenience
Re:
No, it simply points out why Apple needs to modify the App Store to support trial versions and paid updates. I like the idea about not allowing "paid" software to go free, and removing functionality as described should lead to the app being pulled from the store. Adding ads after the fact should also be a no-no.
The flip side is the developer did what he did with the tools available, and we need to keep in mind that the whole mobile App Store concept is a scant 4 years old. As you point out, it's early days yet.
On the post: File Sharing Drones Proof Of Concept Already Built
Re: Re:
Heck, just track the silly things and seize them on the ground.
On the post: This American Life Retracts Entire Episode About Apple Factories After Mike Daisey Admits To Fabricating Parts Of The Story
Re: Butt Jobs Admited To Some Problems
On the post: This American Life Retracts Entire Episode About Apple Factories After Mike Daisey Admits To Fabricating Parts Of The Story
Re: Screw Apple
Wait.
On the post: This American Life Retracts Entire Episode About Apple Factories After Mike Daisey Admits To Fabricating Parts Of The Story
Re: Re:
So, of course, you're going to assume that everything he tells you is a lie?
On the post: This American Life Retracts Entire Episode About Apple Factories After Mike Daisey Admits To Fabricating Parts Of The Story
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the thing: When you're a news outlet that releases dozens of stories per day, and someone comes to you with a story they supposedly spent months researching... just how much fact checking are you expecting?
Are you going to go to China and reinterview everyone they interviewed? Because at some point it's going to be just as expensive as hiring a bunch of reporters and seeking out the stories yourself.
On the post: Wale: I Just Want To Make Music & Give It To Fans For Free... They'll Support Me
Re: Personal - the anti-label
Seriously. I mean, I can see someone being a rabid fan and avidly supporting their favorite singer or group or author. I can even see some enthusiasm for the next one down on the list. But the tenth? The twentieth?
I can think of maybe two or three authors I'd be willing to see in person. Once.
At least on Amazon or iTunes every artist whose music I buy gets a cut of the proceedings. Same for books.
But how many "fans" does Wale need to make even a modest living off of donations and t-shirts? And how long will that support last?
On the post: Wale: I Just Want To Make Music & Give It To Fans For Free... They'll Support Me
Re: Beethoven
You know, things like food, clothing, and so on. Inconsequential stuff to some, I'm sure, but necessary for most of us to live.
On the post: When We Copy, We Justify It; When Others Copy, We Vilify Them
Re: Re:
Mike is conflating the issues.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, let's take a good product and build it using fewer designers and by hiring cheaper, less experienced engineers. Let's cut back on R&D, do less testing, and reduce costs by doing less sales and marketing...
And then let's wonder why no one buys our product any more.
TAASTAAFL
On the post: Nothing Scales Like Stupidity
Re: Re: Re: Re: I can understand the thought process here
If you had qualified your statement and said something like, "Historically, most of the content industry haven't treated..."
We'd be all well and good. My point is that some publishers and studios and labels do get the message, and some are moving forward.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I simply pointed out that we currently have the ability to fairly pay a minor amount to get the aforementioned services. Enforced taxation isn't needed.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was merely pointing out his use of "they" and "them," where he blames all of the problems on "them" and if "they" didn't want people to copy then "they" shouldn't have put the figurative gun into his hand.
And I'm willing to bet that "they" even "made" him pull the trigger...
On the post: Nothing Scales Like Stupidity
Re: Re: I can understand the thought process here
Painting with a rather broad brush, are we not? The content industry? The ENTIRE content industry? There's no label, studio, or publisher that treats its artists and authors well? Or its customers? At all?
Huh.
How about, oh, say, Baen books, who has plenty of authors who can't say enough good things about them. Who sells DRM-free ebooks? Who gives away ebooks to their customers in their "free" library?
Guess they never learned...
On the post: Nothing Scales Like Stupidity
So it doesn't scale?
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They" again. Look, Time Warner is not Apple. 20th Century Fox is not HP. By and large, the technology guys are not the content production guys. Sony is the rather obvious exception, but even there, the consumer electronics division is separate and distinct from the studio.
One might mention that computers, recorders, scanners, and printers can all be used to create content, not just copy it. And even copying for personal use is a different scale altogether than distributing 10,000 copies to anyone and everyone.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re:
How about Spotify? $10 a month gets you unlimited streaming of music, no ads, and an offline mode for playlists. And as streams are tracked, artists earn a royalty when their music is played.
Point is, there are already inexpensive ways for people to do what you suggest.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A possible solution
An amazing piece of logic. Tell me, who is is this mysterious "they" that gives the tools to copy and distribute "data", and then incriminates you for doing so?
I mean, I didn't realize that Time Warner distributed HandBrake and BitTorrent...
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re:
Where I live dumping trash is subject to a $1,000 fine. Is that reasonable? Is that affordable to everyone?
Why $1,000 and not $100? Because it's hard to catch, hence the posted fine is letting someone know that if they do get caught, the penalty will be rather severe. Don't want to risk a $1,000 fine? Don't dump. This is known as deterrence.
Illicit file "sharing" falls into the same category. It's currently hard to catch and expensive to prosecute and prove, hence the outsized "fine."
Too much? Probably. Then again, there's a really simple way to ensure you don't hit the IP lawsuit jackpot...
Next >>