you digitize once, that's it.. ONCE!
And you probably don't even need to, as the files are undoubtedly already digital when it's sent to the printer. So those costs can just be very minimal.
Stocking fees for digital material? Are you out of your tree?!
What do these resellers do? Print them out and then scan them back in, when a customer orders the file for download?
No, a single file on a server doesn't cost that much, that can explain the higher costs. In fact, stocking fees for the paper versions are much, much higher.
More likely is that these companies are greedy, or that they don't want to annoy their resellers by offering the same product for less.
Well not exactly the same product.
A digital file has less value for a customer than a paper version of the comic, as there is no resell value. No real collectors value either. "ooh so you got the first edition of the #1 of the comic in digital format? Big deal{!} I've got a first edition of the #1 of the comic in paper"... Have fun trading your digital copies on conventions.
One of FIFAs sponsors is Heineken. And Bavaria and Heineken are competitors.
But it's incredibly petty of FIFA to deny people access to the stadium based on the logo on their clothing.
Most t-shirts I see have logos on them.
What if I wear an ADIDAS shirt to one of a NIKE sponsored game? Or any other brand t-shirt? Would I be denied access, even though I paid for a ticket?
The problem is that the media companies don't seem to think that they are accountable to the customers, but only to their shareholders, who incidentally aren't the artists nor customers.
So they don't have to listen to the customers, in their (failed) logic.
Well, in Mister Bozzo's case... it went from 0 (as in no chance anyone would get to see the movie) to a lot. And it even brought in money... So, in this case, filesharing had a definite positive net result.
And indeed, there is no way to know that the filesharing of Wolverine did anything to the box office release. Not positive, nor negative.
Fact is, it was heavily pirated, fact is also that it did extremely well at the box office. Better in fact than similar movies with much better ratings and reviews. Where were the negative results from filesharing there? People were slamming the movie online for the cheesy and awful special effects, and non-existant storyline. And yet it did better than for instance Star Trek, a much higher anticipated movie.
Oh, and stop equating copyright infringement with rape, that's way out of line and you know it, it doesn't help your argument, but undermines it in a very big way.
Well, indeed, if some movie company decides to shelve the movie you've put your heart and soul in it, without the ability to recuperate your money (because it was never really released), you could be glad that someone enjoys the movie.
But mr Bozzo's previous film was released on DVD, and was pirated heavily. And yes initially he was scared it would eat into his revenue... but he found out that it didn't matter.
So, your derision doesn't even hold true.
There are numerous examples of even blockbuster movies that actually had a great opening weekend, despite this rampant internet plundering of the poor rich execs.
A particularly good example would be Wolverine. Which got leaked on the internet, got trashed there for the awful special effects (yes, I know, because it was a rough edit, not the finalized product), and yet it had a better Box Office opening than similar movies.
So what bad effect did filesharing have on that multi-million dollar craphouse of a movie?
Oh wait, you don't like facts, you prefer truthiness... your gut feeling tells you "oh because people are "stealing" my works, I am losing money.", despite that there is no proof to be found that corroborates that gut feeling. And maybe, just maybe, you should make better movies... then it won't eat into your revenue, who knows, you might even gain fans for life, who'll even buy your crap products, just because they like the good stuff.
Lesson for this particular bobble-head executive would be to stop making bad movies or get out of that business.
If he knows the movies he produces are bad, why is he making them at all?
"I vowed I would never become a Twit." I'm sure that Leo Laporte would be very happy with that... (He owns the trademark on the word Twit)
Someone who uses Twitter, is a twitterer.
The WHO exaggerated the reports on H1N1? Wow, big surprise there(!)
I said so from the very beginning. I said so during the bird flu "attack" (H1N5) and I said it during H1N1. They used scare tactics by blowing up single instances where the flu resulted in deaths into "pandemic proportions", in order to boost the sales of a certain vaccine. It was so transparent, but the news cycle was so eager for news at that point, that they refused to think critically.
WHO is a corrupt organisation, pandering to their shareholders (the pharmaceutical companies).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
I fear that you are right.
Somehow I doubt I'll ever see Copyright abolished in my lifetime. Hell, I'd consider myself lucky, if we ever get a bit more sensible copyright laws, laws that will make sure that the works will enrich our society.
If we look at the crap that's coming out of the music houses today, it's absolute drek. Sure, some gems are between them, but they aren't the norm, they are the rare exceptions. Usually it's just a few random people picked up from the street, put together under a label, and made to sing. They are nothing more than sockpuppets, controlled by the "big labels"... and by making sure that only their crap is peddled on terrestrial radio, they make sure there is a revenue source.
That's also why they are still battling internet radio and satellite radio, because they can't control those beasts.
Copyright nowadays is indeed about control, mind you, not artist, but control over what we can hear. The Big Labels don't give a damn about artists.
Copyright is a stick, much like patent law. The one who has the biggest portfolio wins. Or the one who has the biggest budget for its legal team wins. It sickens me.
The apologists need to realize, that that is the order that many so-called pirates are fighting against. Sure some do it just for the free ride... others do it, to prove a point. You don't need total control over your works in order to profit from it. Let go one aspect, and you'll win so much more, rather than litigate and raise a lot of bad blood.
But they don't see the sea-change. Or don't want to see it. They fear the power of the Internet. They don't understand or don't want to understand that it doesn't need to be a bad thing. That if you play your cards right, you can profit from filesharing.
Case in point: the leak of the movie Wolverine.
Bad, awful movie, crappy leak too, but it was a bigger box-office hit than movies that didn't leak out before its premiere release.
We can't prove it was because of the leak, much the same way that the apologists can't prove that a single download is a lost sale. But it's peculiar. The movie leaked, many people saw it for free, and still the movie made a lot of money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
You've got a good point, but after we can get them to agree on this one change, we can push for the next change. As their lobby groups have been doing for years.
Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
Well then have the law changed to its original wording would be ideal then. 15 years for the content creator, plus an additional 15 years upon request.
Abolishing it, you will never get done, too much opposition. This is in my eyes a decent compromise.
cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
Blabla artist control blabla another strawman argument blablabla silly pirate logic blablablabla copyright infringement is stealing Blablaf-ingbla.
It's getting old and tedious.
1) copyright law was never about artist control
2) copyright infringement is not stealing. You can't equate a download to a lost sale, as you can actually GAIN sales through unauthorised downloading. "Ooh I like what I'm hearing, I'm going to buy their records/go to their concerts/buy their t-shirts/rave about them to my friends."
3) only way for artists to make money is to make quality content.
4) copyright law was never intended as (but nowadays used as) a welfare state for lazy copyright holders. (please note: content creator isn't necessarily the same as a copyright holder)
5) Mike Masnick, nor many commenters here, ever talked about abolishing copyright. But rather suggest change to it. To balance the law out to a more fair treatment for both the artists and the public. As right now the public is getting shafted left and right, and being cheated out of their cultural heritage, by locking up our culture behind perpetual copyright.
But of course, these points will fall on deaf ears on the apologists side. As they'd rather sandbag the discussion, and ignore the points raised by the opposition.
So, if my paid for browser contained a link to the NYT website, it would be illegal? Are you nuts?
If the NYT doesn't want to be linked to, it should stay the hell of my internets.
If it doesn't want traffic, it has no business on the web.
Just the fact that this RSS-reading app contained a NYT rss (undoubtedly among many others) by default, that's suddenly illegal, because you had to pay money for that app? So if it was a free app, NYT would be okay with it? What's the difference?
On the post: Marvel Pricing Digital Comics Three Times Higher Than Paper Copies [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I read these comics on an almost daily basis:
xkcd http://www.xkcd.com
sinfest http://www.sinfest.net
ctrl-alt-del http://www.cad-comic.com/
userfriendly http://www.userfriendly.org
bunny-comic http://www.bunny-comic.com
darths & droids http://www.darthsanddroids.net
girl genius http://www.girlgeniusonline.com
tweep http://www.tweep.com
schlock mercenary http://www.schlockmercenary.com
extra life http://www.myextralife.com/
phoenix requiem http://requiem.seraph-inn.com/
All for free. How can this be, Marvel?
On the post: Marvel Pricing Digital Comics Three Times Higher Than Paper Copies [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I read these comics on an almost daily basis:
Ctrl-alt-del (http://www.cad-comic.com/),
userfriendly (http://www.userfriendly.org) ,
xkcd (http://www.xkcd.com),
sinfest (http://www.sinfest.net),
bunny-comic (http://www.bunny-comic.com),
darths & droids (http://www.darthsanddroids.net),
girl genius (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com),
tweep! (http://www.tweep.com),
schlock mercenary (http://www.schlockmercenary.com),
extra life (http://www.myextralife.com/),
phoenix requiem (http://requiem.seraph-inn.com/)
All for free. How can this be?
On the post: Marvel Pricing Digital Comics Three Times Higher Than Paper Copies [Updated]
Re: Re: P.S.
On the post: Marvel Pricing Digital Comics Three Times Higher Than Paper Copies [Updated]
And you probably don't even need to, as the files are undoubtedly already digital when it's sent to the printer. So those costs can just be very minimal.
Stocking fees for digital material? Are you out of your tree?!
What do these resellers do? Print them out and then scan them back in, when a customer orders the file for download?
No, a single file on a server doesn't cost that much, that can explain the higher costs. In fact, stocking fees for the paper versions are much, much higher.
More likely is that these companies are greedy, or that they don't want to annoy their resellers by offering the same product for less.
Well not exactly the same product.
A digital file has less value for a customer than a paper version of the comic, as there is no resell value. No real collectors value either. "ooh so you got the first edition of the #1 of the comic in digital format? Big deal{!} I've got a first edition of the #1 of the comic in paper"... Have fun trading your digital copies on conventions.
On the post: FIFA Threatens To Sue Brewery, Because Dutch World Cup Fans Wore Orange
It's actually more insidious than this
But it's incredibly petty of FIFA to deny people access to the stadium based on the logo on their clothing.
Most t-shirts I see have logos on them.
What if I wear an ADIDAS shirt to one of a NIKE sponsored game? Or any other brand t-shirt? Would I be denied access, even though I paid for a ticket?
On the post: Is Forcing IsoHunt To Block Search Terms A First Amendment Violation?
I own copyrights that deal with the letters M, P and A. I demand that you cease using those letters in your name.
Blocking the search for the number 10? WTF?! Are these lawyers on crack?
On the post: Anti-Piracy Campaign Shows You 'Killing' Look Alike Pop Stars
So they don't have to listen to the customers, in their (failed) logic.
On the post: Film Director: File Sharing Only Hurts Bad Or Mediocre Films
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And indeed, there is no way to know that the filesharing of Wolverine did anything to the box office release. Not positive, nor negative.
Fact is, it was heavily pirated, fact is also that it did extremely well at the box office. Better in fact than similar movies with much better ratings and reviews. Where were the negative results from filesharing there? People were slamming the movie online for the cheesy and awful special effects, and non-existant storyline. And yet it did better than for instance Star Trek, a much higher anticipated movie.
Oh, and stop equating copyright infringement with rape, that's way out of line and you know it, it doesn't help your argument, but undermines it in a very big way.
On the post: Film Director: File Sharing Only Hurts Bad Or Mediocre Films
Re: Re: Re:
But mr Bozzo's previous film was released on DVD, and was pirated heavily. And yes initially he was scared it would eat into his revenue... but he found out that it didn't matter.
So, your derision doesn't even hold true.
There are numerous examples of even blockbuster movies that actually had a great opening weekend, despite this rampant internet plundering of the poor rich execs.
A particularly good example would be Wolverine. Which got leaked on the internet, got trashed there for the awful special effects (yes, I know, because it was a rough edit, not the finalized product), and yet it had a better Box Office opening than similar movies.
So what bad effect did filesharing have on that multi-million dollar craphouse of a movie?
Oh wait, you don't like facts, you prefer truthiness... your gut feeling tells you "oh because people are "stealing" my works, I am losing money.", despite that there is no proof to be found that corroborates that gut feeling. And maybe, just maybe, you should make better movies... then it won't eat into your revenue, who knows, you might even gain fans for life, who'll even buy your crap products, just because they like the good stuff.
On the post: Film Director: File Sharing Only Hurts Bad Or Mediocre Films
Re:
If he knows the movies he produces are bad, why is he making them at all?
On the post: Twitter Is Like A Casual Conversation Among Friends Over Dinner
Someone who uses Twitter, is a twitterer.
On the post: SCO Loses Yet Again; Is It Finally Over?
Re: It won't be over
On the post: WHO Exaggerated H1N1 Flu Problems, After Consulting With Consultants Working For Pharmaceutical Firms
I said so from the very beginning. I said so during the bird flu "attack" (H1N5) and I said it during H1N1. They used scare tactics by blowing up single instances where the flu resulted in deaths into "pandemic proportions", in order to boost the sales of a certain vaccine. It was so transparent, but the news cycle was so eager for news at that point, that they refused to think critically.
WHO is a corrupt organisation, pandering to their shareholders (the pharmaceutical companies).
On the post: Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
Somehow I doubt I'll ever see Copyright abolished in my lifetime. Hell, I'd consider myself lucky, if we ever get a bit more sensible copyright laws, laws that will make sure that the works will enrich our society.
If we look at the crap that's coming out of the music houses today, it's absolute drek. Sure, some gems are between them, but they aren't the norm, they are the rare exceptions. Usually it's just a few random people picked up from the street, put together under a label, and made to sing. They are nothing more than sockpuppets, controlled by the "big labels"... and by making sure that only their crap is peddled on terrestrial radio, they make sure there is a revenue source.
That's also why they are still battling internet radio and satellite radio, because they can't control those beasts.
Copyright nowadays is indeed about control, mind you, not artist, but control over what we can hear. The Big Labels don't give a damn about artists.
Copyright is a stick, much like patent law. The one who has the biggest portfolio wins. Or the one who has the biggest budget for its legal team wins. It sickens me.
The apologists need to realize, that that is the order that many so-called pirates are fighting against. Sure some do it just for the free ride... others do it, to prove a point. You don't need total control over your works in order to profit from it. Let go one aspect, and you'll win so much more, rather than litigate and raise a lot of bad blood.
But they don't see the sea-change. Or don't want to see it. They fear the power of the Internet. They don't understand or don't want to understand that it doesn't need to be a bad thing. That if you play your cards right, you can profit from filesharing.
Case in point: the leak of the movie Wolverine.
Bad, awful movie, crappy leak too, but it was a bigger box-office hit than movies that didn't leak out before its premiere release.
We can't prove it was because of the leak, much the same way that the apologists can't prove that a single download is a lost sale. But it's peculiar. The movie leaked, many people saw it for free, and still the movie made a lot of money.
I need to stop ranting. :/ bad for my health.
On the post: Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending
Re: Re: Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
On the post: Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending
Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
On the post: Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending
Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
Abolishing it, you will never get done, too much opposition. This is in my eyes a decent compromise.
On the post: Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending
cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
It's getting old and tedious.
1) copyright law was never about artist control
2) copyright infringement is not stealing. You can't equate a download to a lost sale, as you can actually GAIN sales through unauthorised downloading. "Ooh I like what I'm hearing, I'm going to buy their records/go to their concerts/buy their t-shirts/rave about them to my friends."
3) only way for artists to make money is to make quality content.
4) copyright law was never intended as (but nowadays used as) a welfare state for lazy copyright holders. (please note: content creator isn't necessarily the same as a copyright holder)
5) Mike Masnick, nor many commenters here, ever talked about abolishing copyright. But rather suggest change to it. To balance the law out to a more fair treatment for both the artists and the public. As right now the public is getting shafted left and right, and being cheated out of their cultural heritage, by locking up our culture behind perpetual copyright.
But of course, these points will fall on deaf ears on the apologists side. As they'd rather sandbag the discussion, and ignore the points raised by the opposition.
On the post: NY Times Confused About Its Own RSS Feed; Orders Takedown Of iPad RSS Reader
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the NYT doesn't want to be linked to, it should stay the hell of my internets.
If it doesn't want traffic, it has no business on the web.
Just the fact that this RSS-reading app contained a NYT rss (undoubtedly among many others) by default, that's suddenly illegal, because you had to pay money for that app? So if it was a free app, NYT would be okay with it? What's the difference?
On the post: Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>