It would be easy to ban the use of social networks to spew profanity and promote gangs. But instead they ban all use, even when the player is saying something good. That proves my point. Rather than look at it rationally and ban the misappropriate uses and allow the positive uses, they ignorantly put limits on all uses.
This will change. The problem is that the old farts who run the NBA simply do not understand social networking. They're used to controlling every aspect of the media/press but this leaves them scratching their heads. So rather than try understand it and use it to their advantage, they simply try to kill it. It won't work. By next year we'll look back and laugh at BS like this.
Because people would not want to buy multiple ebook reader for each publisher. And even if some publishers came together to make an ebook reader, there will always be publishers left out from which consumers could not buy.
Imagine if each music label had its own music format and player. Or if each movie studio had its own movie format and corresponding player. Consumers would be utterly frustrated, right? Very few people would buy, right? Well, there's your answer.
"what part of economics says that you MUST drop prices because you have a somewhat lower cost structure on a part of your business?"
Correct, the market sets the price. The most people are willing to spend, regardless of how much it costs to produce.
"It is fairly logical for the price of an E-book to be similar in the market place because customer demand supports it."
Nope, there is no logic to that at all. There is no logic which necessitates that because consumers are willing to pay $20 for a paper book, that they must be willing to pay the exact same for an ebook.
First, the paper book can be easily resold, thus a portion of the purchase price can be recouped, that cannot be done with an ebook. Second, the paper books can be easily loaned out, taken out in the rain, can be placed on a shelf to show off to your friends... etc., etc., etc.
I'm not saying that ebooks should cost less. That's not for me or you to decide. That's for the market to decide. And right now the market is deciding that $10 is a popular price.
"but why would anyone want to drop prices and gut another part of their business by doing it?"
Because the market demands it. God, you started off so well. You argued that the market sets prices, not the cost of production. Now you argue that prices are set independent from the market and are arbitrarily set by the seller to whatever the seller thinks is appropriate. That's not the way it works.
"They're trying to profit off of the ridiculous free speech restrictions...."
Considering how few of these shits will actually sell, as the vast majority of people won't get it and would not care about the issue even after it was explained to them... I highly doubt this was done for any profit. I think it was done solely as commentary on the ridiculousness of this situation.
Obviously written by someone who has never written a song. It would simply be impossible to kill off the creation of new music. Music, well, quality music, does not come from your wallet. It comes from an unstoppable force within you.
The question I have for you is this: Why should we artificially prop up a failing business model? If this one dies, a new one will come into existence. As someone once said, P2P will not kill off the music industry, only the current industry.
Newspapers love stories about the little guy battling the big ugly corporation. As long as that big ugly corporation is not a huge advertiser, of course!
I was in law school in Baltimore back when Bouchat's allegation was first made. I was under the impression that he had a pretty strong case. Maybe that was just the way the local press spun it.
Check out the Supreme Court of South Dakota's opinion (PDF) here. It's a great summary of the facts. The guy is a total sicko.
It appears he molested many more girls than just these two. And his defense was, get this, because he tricked them into submitting to fake medical exams, which he performed despite having no medical training or background, it was not technically rape because, well, they submitted to it. Never mind the fact that they never would have submitted if they knew the truth.
And it's totally depressing that one of the victims had a father who sexually abused her. So when the state placed her with the not yet convicted rapist Ted Alvin Klaudt, she probably thought she was safe and that her troubles were behind her. In reality it was out of the frying pan into the fire. Now she'll probably never trust another man again.
Luckily the sicko got 44 years so he'll never see the light of day again.
I have no doubt that sheet music publishers and song writers were upset. That's why they get paid for radio play.
But I've never heard that the seller of phonographs, i.e., the music labels, complaining about airplay. There's this thing called payola. Despite what you may have heard, it did not start in the 50s. For as long as music was played on the radio, the people selling the music were willing to pay for the play.
"You know what the problem is? Youtube is free..."
The same thing could have been said about radio. But yet, no one complained about radio being free or getting a free ride back when Elvis, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones were selling millions of albums based upon their radio play.
Wait a minute, are you saying that former South Dakota state Rep. Ted Alvin Klaudt was convicted of raping his two foster daughters a couple years ago? Ted Alvin Klaudt was convicted of rape? The Ted Alvin Klaudt?
Wow, I can't believe that Ted Alvin Klaudt was convicted of raping his foster daughters. Ted Alvin Klaudt, the former state rep. You know, the Ted Alvin Klaudt who was convicted of raping two foster daughters.
The main problem with this site is you can never really tell when someone is writing what should be obvious satire or when someone believes he's writing the absolute truth.
Thanks for succinctly explaining the logical fallacy of the straw-man argument.
I made an argument about how radio helps artists. You know, how radio helped Frank Sinatra, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Abba sell billions of records.
Well, you ignored that argument and brought up a very weak argument that I never raised, that if you give away everything for free, you get nothing. But, like I said, while that's certainly true, the contrary was never argued by me.
On the post: NBA Player Fined For Sending A Happy Twitter Message Too Soon
Re: Re:
It would be easy to ban the use of social networks to spew profanity and promote gangs. But instead they ban all use, even when the player is saying something good. That proves my point. Rather than look at it rationally and ban the misappropriate uses and allow the positive uses, they ignorantly put limits on all uses.
On the post: NBA Player Fined For Sending A Happy Twitter Message Too Soon
On the post: Sony Ebook Boss: DRM Needs To Stay And Ebooks Should Cost More Than $10
Re: A thought:
Because people would not want to buy multiple ebook reader for each publisher. And even if some publishers came together to make an ebook reader, there will always be publishers left out from which consumers could not buy.
Imagine if each music label had its own music format and player. Or if each movie studio had its own movie format and corresponding player. Consumers would be utterly frustrated, right? Very few people would buy, right? Well, there's your answer.
On the post: Sony Ebook Boss: DRM Needs To Stay And Ebooks Should Cost More Than $10
Re:
Correct, the market sets the price. The most people are willing to spend, regardless of how much it costs to produce.
"It is fairly logical for the price of an E-book to be similar in the market place because customer demand supports it."
Nope, there is no logic to that at all. There is no logic which necessitates that because consumers are willing to pay $20 for a paper book, that they must be willing to pay the exact same for an ebook.
First, the paper book can be easily resold, thus a portion of the purchase price can be recouped, that cannot be done with an ebook. Second, the paper books can be easily loaned out, taken out in the rain, can be placed on a shelf to show off to your friends... etc., etc., etc.
I'm not saying that ebooks should cost less. That's not for me or you to decide. That's for the market to decide. And right now the market is deciding that $10 is a popular price.
"but why would anyone want to drop prices and gut another part of their business by doing it?"
Because the market demands it. God, you started off so well. You argued that the market sets prices, not the cost of production. Now you argue that prices are set independent from the market and are arbitrarily set by the seller to whatever the seller thinks is appropriate. That's not the way it works.
On the post: Vancouver Olympics Unhappy With 'Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 and 2011 Edition' Slogan
Considering how few of these shits will actually sell, as the vast majority of people won't get it and would not care about the issue even after it was explained to them... I highly doubt this was done for any profit. I think it was done solely as commentary on the ridiculousness of this situation.
On the post: Songwriters Guild: Network Neutrality Means More Piracy
Re: Another smart - dumb argument
Obviously written by someone who has never written a song. It would simply be impossible to kill off the creation of new music. Music, well, quality music, does not come from your wallet. It comes from an unstoppable force within you.
The question I have for you is this: Why should we artificially prop up a failing business model? If this one dies, a new one will come into existence. As someone once said, P2P will not kill off the music industry, only the current industry.
On the post: Amateur Artist Wants To Ban All Sales Of Old Baltimore Ravens Game Films Over Logo Copyright
Re: Re: Question
On the post: Amateur Artist Wants To Ban All Sales Of Old Baltimore Ravens Game Films Over Logo Copyright
Re: Question
It's simply easier to be fan friendly when you only have a handful of fans.
...and avoiding odd money grabs like this one"
Has the NHL ever been profitable enough to have money left over to grab?
On the post: Amateur Artist Wants To Ban All Sales Of Old Baltimore Ravens Game Films Over Logo Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: Amateur Artist Wants To Ban All Sales Of Old Baltimore Ravens Game Films Over Logo Copyright
On the post: How Monsanto Used Gene Patents To Corner The Market In Seeds
Re: Selective Enforcement
On the post: Lawmaker, Convicted Of Raping Foster Kids, Claims Name Is Copyrighted So You Can't Report It
Convicted rapist Ted Alvin Klaudt
It appears he molested many more girls than just these two. And his defense was, get this, because he tricked them into submitting to fake medical exams, which he performed despite having no medical training or background, it was not technically rape because, well, they submitted to it. Never mind the fact that they never would have submitted if they knew the truth.
And it's totally depressing that one of the victims had a father who sexually abused her. So when the state placed her with the not yet convicted rapist Ted Alvin Klaudt, she probably thought she was safe and that her troubles were behind her. In reality it was out of the frying pan into the fire. Now she'll probably never trust another man again.
Luckily the sicko got 44 years so he'll never see the light of day again.
On the post: Minnesota Public Radio Reporter Faces Hacking Charges For Reporting On Data Leak
If Lookout Services sues, it would be a civil lawsuit and Sasha Aslanian would face no prison time or criminal conviction.
My guess is that if Lookout Services is pushing for criminal charges to be brought, any sane prosecutor will refuse to do so.
On the post: Simon Cowell's Confusion: YouTube Should Pay; YouTube Helped Sell Millions Of Albums
Re: Re: Re:
But I've never heard that the seller of phonographs, i.e., the music labels, complaining about airplay. There's this thing called payola. Despite what you may have heard, it did not start in the 50s. For as long as music was played on the radio, the people selling the music were willing to pay for the play.
On the post: Simon Cowell's Confusion: YouTube Should Pay; YouTube Helped Sell Millions Of Albums
Re:
The same thing could have been said about radio. But yet, no one complained about radio being free or getting a free ride back when Elvis, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones were selling millions of albums based upon their radio play.
On the post: Lawmaker, Convicted Of Raping Foster Kids, Claims Name Is Copyrighted So You Can't Report It
Wow, I can't believe that Ted Alvin Klaudt was convicted of raping his foster daughters. Ted Alvin Klaudt, the former state rep. You know, the Ted Alvin Klaudt who was convicted of raping two foster daughters.
On the post: Simon Cowell's Confusion: YouTube Should Pay; YouTube Helped Sell Millions Of Albums
On the post: Simon Cowell's Confusion: YouTube Should Pay; YouTube Helped Sell Millions Of Albums
Re:
I'm leaning towards satire with this one...
On the post: White House Actually Goes Against Hollywood, Supports Copyright Exemptions For Visually Impaired
On the post: Vimeo Sued For Lip Dub Videos
Re: Re: News from August 31, 1920...
Thanks for succinctly explaining the logical fallacy of the straw-man argument.
I made an argument about how radio helps artists. You know, how radio helped Frank Sinatra, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Abba sell billions of records.
Well, you ignored that argument and brought up a very weak argument that I never raised, that if you give away everything for free, you get nothing. But, like I said, while that's certainly true, the contrary was never argued by me.
Next >>