Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 4:03pm
Re: Re: Re:
No, I am using the 41% figure provided in the article. I take the "list price" and take 41% off of that. Bingo, about $19.
Except, as usual, you're looking at it bass-ackwards in an attempt to muddy the waters AGAIN.
A distributor sells a CD to a retail store for a wholesale price (let's say $10). The retail store marks the CD up to $16.98 and make $6.98.
For a a start, that part of the article is a quote from Lowery and:
Ok. So, in that scenario, the retailer is making $6.98 on a $16.98 CD. That's... wait for it... 41%. Yeah,
is where the 41% comes from and is clearly referrring specifically to the Lowery example rather than holding the 41% up as a standard markup, so pretending it is is artful at best? I'd imagine for YOUR example a far more likely scenario is that Best Buy has negotiated a reduced wholesale price so they can still make most of their margin.
The point is that Mike looked at it from the wrong end, for the wrong reasons.
No, the point of the article was that the costs are less to the artist when you are talking about the similar function. How much money the retailer makes or whether it's "too much" is irrelevant, the point is that both are retailers and that iTunes is less.
Further, and this is very important: 30% of X and 41% of Y are not comparable. If the retail has to discount to sell, that 41% quickly becomes 20%, 10%, or a loss. Apple on the other hand gets the same 30% gross margin all the time, no matter what. They have little risk.
Aaaand that might be true for a single order of product, but are you going to claim that the wholesale price doesn't go down if a CD is old/not popular?
Take it one step further: When you sell to a physical retailer at a wholesale price, your sale is complete -
Indeed, if you insist let's take it a bit further. The price paid to the label is 80% of wholesale. I.e. on top of "losing" the "41%" of the example, the label is losing a futher approx 12% of retail value to the distributor. In the iTunes example there IS no distributor necessary beyond a fixed fee service so effectively the "label" gets 70% of RETAIL not wholesale.
Again, whether 30% is "too much" is irrelevant, the artist or label is going to be better off in 90% of cases. The point was that Mr Lowery's assertation was that he was worse off using iTunes not how much iTunes might be making out of it.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:55pm
Oh dear me
Virtually every neutral academic study (overview here) has concluded that there is real harm to the music community when people download music illegally.
I tried to read the overview, I really did. Unfortunately I got to page 2 and found:
What has not been noted is that most estimates indicate that the file-sharing has caused the entire enormous decline in record sales that has occurred over the last decade.
Really? The entire decline? So nothing else has had any effect at all? Not a global recession? Increase in consumer spending on other forms of entertainment? Nothing?
If he'd said most even I could have kept going but as it is I was just laughing too hard to read. I'll have to try again when I'm in a particularly sombre mood.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:44pm
Re:
Nice going trying to distract from the point of the article.
The fact that iTunes may be a bunch of money grubbing scum and get to keep more of their 30% than the retail stores got to keep of their 40+% still doesn't make them comparable to a label. And whether they are charging too high a percentage as a retailer or not 30% is still less cost to the artist than 41% last time I looked.
As for the foray into "Taylor Swift Live", do you have any figures to support a wholsale price of $19 or were you just ASSuming?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 9:34am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a direct download, you control the content, and you serve your customers directly, creating trust.
Now there's an idea. I think I'll just go buy myself a legitimate 1080p download of the "just re-released on bluray" Pulp Fiction. Oh.. that's a shame I don't seem to be able to find one that's not (probably) infringing. In fact searching for it I don't see one offering I could "trust" not to be infringing. It seems my only choice for legitimate HD content is a little plastic disc. What was that about comparing REAL models?
The rest of your post, well, just isn't honest or fair.
Fair? possibly not. Honest? Yes it was a 100% honest, if facetious, opinion based on observation.
Oh, and:
Spreading the load isn't effecient, as much as it is freeloading on other people's networks.
Aaaaaand again with the "wanting stuff for free" rant. If you dislike it so much offer the customer a CHOICE. Personally I don't mind sharing a bit of bandwidth since a/ I can control it and b/ I can get a Linux distro or appliance server down in a 10th of the time it would take otherwise. But if sharing your toys and playing nicely isn't your thing that's up to you.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 9:08am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no need for them to change at all. If their business models are truly that bad, they will be wiped out by new business models, new entrants into the entertainment business that will wipe them out.
Well yes and no. That's exactly what willhappen/is happening. Except the playing field isn't level so it isn't happening as fast as it should. Unless, I suppose, you consider it acceptable as part of a business model to be able to buy laws to prop up your business in against any emerging competition that doesn't happen to have several billion lying around to "lobby" with.
The business model follows the product, not the other way around.
It's both and service is a product too. Cars took off not when cars turned out to be "better" than horses, but when they were better AND accessible AND cheaper due to mass production.
If you think that the free distribution model is a better business model, then make some content for it and use the business model
You do know that every time you yark on about "giving stuff away doesn't work" you sound dumb, right? Not one person in this thread mentioned "the free distribution model" but you. I wasn't aware it was singular either.
Why do all the new models seem to be hinged on "and we pirate the old system into the ground?"
They only do in your tiny little universe inside your head. Most articles and comments about business models I've seen round here talk about different ways of using legitimate content. Netflix for example. On the other hand you, like the major content companies seem to have one of 2 responses to companies or ideas like that; 1/ [put fingers in ears] "La la la la la I'm not listening to you, you can't make me so there!" 2/ "Oh, we didn't think that would work, right well now you owe us ummmmmm a Gazillion dollars in extra licensing fees that we've just invented on top of the ones we agreed to in the first place. Why? Umm well because only WE are allowed to make ANY money whatsoever of our stuff (It's OURS OURS OURS SO THERE!!!) and you're just making too dang much even though you're paying us."
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 8:39am
Re: Re: Go Daddy
But you still *lost* 10,000 people who would have been there in addition to the 12,000.
Sorry, going to have to call BS on that one. That's as tenuous as a media company claiming to have "lost" £10bn they didn't have in the first place due to piracy. If they're still growing they've "lost" nothing, their growth has just slowed. An effect sure, which may even have scared them a bit, but not a loss.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 8:28am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excellent idea. The main issue was that "even a service company dedicated solely to aiding copyright enforcement can see the need for business model change so why can't the studios?".
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 8:23am
Re: Re: Re:
Having a great product when you can't deliver it to your customers or provide a customer service would be worthless. Having a great movie sitting in a format that only a fraction of your potential customers want isn't going to help.
Let's stop apologising for guys who run studios that expect everyone to pay though the nose for mediocre product with zero delivery or service. It just seems stupid to support them.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 8:11am
Re: Re:
Torrents are generally NOT effecient, except that they spread the load over everyone else's network rather than making the original distributor pay to get their work out there
"Torrents are not efficient, except for the ways in which they are efficient." Interesting observation.
If you started from scratch, this still wouldn't be the most desirable model. Versioning alone of files is a real issue.
Soooo making, for example, an official release with an appropriate hash that's independantly checkable wouldn't go some way to solving versioning, or a little bit of thought and development from someone in whose intrerests it would be to make it more efficient? And as it is, you'd say bit-torrents were far less efficient than, say, shipping little plastic disks everywhere?
I think what you meant was "I can't think of a good way to be able to charge a boat-load of cash for every single peer-to-peer byte of data moved, nor can I think of a justification I could use to charge enough to average at least 1000% profit per item that anyone would swallow"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 7:51am
Re:
this article doesn't prove what you say, you read it your way to back up your arguement, while others read it differently
That's known as the "Redbeard Rum" argument:
"Isn't it usual to have a crew on a ship?"
"Opinion is divided; All the other Captains say it is, I say it isn't"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 4:03am
Re: Re: Re:
Why not? What is unreasonable about it? It's technically possible and very very easy. Hell, I can do it from here starting with the highest available quality format (bluray) and working from that. It would take a couple of hours and give me EXACTLY what I want. Of course that would be infringing copyright, wouldn't it?
SO is the problem that my "utopia" isn't possible, or that a bunch or moron corporations are too scared of what I "might" do with a film to allow me to do it legally and pay for it once?
Again, an artificial system to limit what is possible is not progress. The aim should be to make money out of the possibilities not pretend they don't exist.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 3:51pm
Re:
What I am seeing is that the content companies are coming out with a system (content management) that should allow you to do pretty much everything you want, moving from device to device, etc.
Ah ha ha hahaha hahahahahahahaha hAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
That's about the funniest thing I think I've ever seen in print.... possibly ever.
I've bought rather a lot of content thank you very much and I've yet to see one piece offered in ANY format that I can use on my windows computer (with Bluray drive), laptop (DVD only but HD screen), Linux machine (no drive at all), media box connected to High-def television, tablet, smartphone, iPod and any other device I might fancy at the time and see in the best possible format on whatever device I like without having to jump through hoops to get it there or prove every 15 seconds I paid for it.
The fact that you happen to think I'm a nasty, evil piraty pirate is not my problem. I paid for the content, I want to be able to watch it whenever and wherever I want. When you have a product that can do that, I might even be willing to pay a few more sheckles for it instead of fishing the trash out of the bargain bin when it's cheap enough for me to bother.
Doesn't exist... so stop pretending it does and since I can only assume with lines like that that you work for such an organisation, try giving me what I ask for - I will lay you a large bet you'll make more money than you do now that way no matter how may people copy it.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 3:26pm
Re:
How do Brits / the rest of the world, take to becoming an extension of the US?
We've hated it for a quite a number of years thank you very much and wish those the other side of the political pond would stick to things they know about like "world series" sports that no other country plays. We suck bad enough at infringing on personal freedoms all by ourselves without "you lot" getting involved thanks.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 3:19pm
Re: Re: When math gets wierd
As opposed the the Infinite Improbibility Drive, created by feeding the unlikelihood of ever creating one into a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-meson brain suspended in a really hot cup of fresh tea..... Tea is important but only a tiny divisor of non-absoluteness at the end of the bill of Bistromathics.
Probably Douglas Adams just decided that trees were a really bad idea and went back to the ocean. Wish the RIAA did too.....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:16am
Re: Couldn't it be . . .
that there's an automated system in use that automatically takes into account some measurement of news article appearances by an artist
I'm unclear to me how that would be less of a rip-off, though as you say somewhat less emotive. I'd also expect in that case to see an awful lot of planted stories to get people talking about somewhat forgotten artists as an excuse to jack the prices up, but perhaps that's just me being cynical.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:05am
Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, you are familiar with the prices of ALL music on iTunes' UK site
A nice try - an attempt to broadly imply that there were many other albums that changed price as well as a sweep at implying that you are familiar with the UK ITunes site and know what you're talking about. Except that even after the sweeping implication, the sarcasm and the pointless ad-homenim attack I still spotted, as I'm sure did many others, that you offered not one shred of corroboration. Also, since I bothered to read the link to the apology article, I find that:
Sony says it’s sorry it raised prices on two Whitney Houston albums at Apple’s U.K. iTunes store the day after the singer’s death.
and
Sony's Statement:
“Whitney Houston product was mistakenly mispriced on the UK iTunes store on Sunday. When discovered, the mistake was immediately corrected. We apologize for any offense caused.”
You'd have thought they'd have mentioned a good excuse like a faulty exchange rate affecting multiple items and not just those two at that point wouldn't you?
So I'm afraid your exchange rate "explanation" looks a little thin.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Feb 2012 @ 5:13pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would bet you that, if you calculated the artists cost in time and such on an hourly rate, very few of them are even making minimum wage for their efforts
And I would bet you that each artist makes a gazillion dollars a minute just for thinking about using the service.
Oh... I'm sorry I thought we were playing "Who can make the most obviously totally unsubtantiated and pulled out of their arse claim".
The costs aren't low - the costs are merely transferred, once again, to the artist. It's the hidden costs that labels were fronting the money for, now the artists have to find it themselves.
That would be worse than the label charging all those costs back to the artist with the addition of plenty of interest and dubious accounting would it?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Feb 2012 @ 3:31am
Re: Re: Re:
Sooooo when it's jobs the technology cuts requirements (jobs) wildly, but when it comes to content company profits it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand the same price for the digital product as for the physical? Double standard much?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 5:41pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no valid rebuttal to it.
Technically correct perhaps if you consider "valid rebuttal" to only include empirical evidence of the success of an alternative. Since the content companies have gone out of their way at every point to stifle/sue/kill any possible lower priced legal alternative, saying there's no hard evidence is like a banker shouting "You can't prove the economy would be better if we hadn't sold all those sub-prime mortgages and derivatives".
On the other hand, every bit of extrapolated evidence (that hasn't been paid for by the companies that benefit) and every bit of anecdotal evidence, as well as the application of logic suggest otherwise.
And while we're on the subject of anecdotal evidence, I took my child (young enough to qualify for a "discount") to the cinema for the first time in many years recently and for the 2 of us it cost the equivalent of $60 to see a so-so "hollywood blockbuster". More than anything it reminded me why I don't bother going to the cinema any more.
Given that at one time I used to go on average once every 2 weeks, that I have now far more spare money than I did then and no more access to copied fare than I did then (technically less - years ago I used to borrow videos from someone who had a habit of getting them before cinema release in the UK) do you think the drop in my cinema attendance is:
A/ Because I've suddenly started wanting everything for free despite more desposable income and I've turned into a nasty piraty pirate?
Or:
B/ Because the quality of the cinema offering has gone down while the price has gone through the roof and for the few films worth watching I'm now happy to wait the 6 months 'til they are £3 in the DVD bargain bin?
So price/value isn't a provable factor? yeah... right.
Oh, and I could be wrong but far as I know in the UK at least, a drug has to be specifically declared illegal so whatever the latest designer drug is tends to be legal for a while 'til the government decides it's nasty and evil and not "nice" like say nicotine. For example, according to a quick google search mephedrone didn't become illegal in the UK 'til 2010 and from memory ecstasy was also legal when it first became popular.
So yes, from 1 viewpoint, the government's "whack-a-mole" approach to drugs could draw quite a reasonable parallel to the attempts to "combat" both piracy, and also "combat" any attempts to offer legal alternatives (e.g. suing for the length of the piece of cable between the DVD player and the TV when renting a DVD.)
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:24am
Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing
Like.... that breath you just took of air that doesn't belong to you?
Or that pebble you picked up off a beach on holiday?
Or all that water that evaporated from the local reservior and fell as rain on YOUR house?
Or that bird that got stuck in the grill of your car?
Yes, I know that's tenuous, but if you're going to say stupid stuff then I get to as well.
"Ownership" is a tenuous enough fabrication of society anyway and not some universal truth. Trying to apply it to an entirely imaginary concept and call it the same makes no sense.
Try taking a breath from foaming at the mouth, think about what it is you think you "own", then have a reasoned debate about it why don't you?
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
Re: Re: Re:
Except, as usual, you're looking at it bass-ackwards in an attempt to muddy the waters AGAIN.
For a a start, that part of the article is a quote from Lowery and:
is where the 41% comes from and is clearly referrring specifically to the Lowery example rather than holding the 41% up as a standard markup, so pretending it is is artful at best? I'd imagine for YOUR example a far more likely scenario is that Best Buy has negotiated a reduced wholesale price so they can still make most of their margin.
No, the point of the article was that the costs are less to the artist when you are talking about the similar function. How much money the retailer makes or whether it's "too much" is irrelevant, the point is that both are retailers and that iTunes is less.
Aaaand that might be true for a single order of product, but are you going to claim that the wholesale price doesn't go down if a CD is old/not popular?
Indeed, if you insist let's take it a bit further. The price paid to the label is 80% of wholesale. I.e. on top of "losing" the "41%" of the example, the label is losing a futher approx 12% of retail value to the distributor. In the iTunes example there IS no distributor necessary beyond a fixed fee service so effectively the "label" gets 70% of RETAIL not wholesale.
Again, whether 30% is "too much" is irrelevant, the artist or label is going to be better off in 90% of cases. The point was that Mr Lowery's assertation was that he was worse off using iTunes not how much iTunes might be making out of it.
On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing
Oh dear me
I tried to read the overview, I really did. Unfortunately I got to page 2 and found:
Really? The entire decline? So nothing else has had any effect at all? Not a global recession? Increase in consumer spending on other forms of entertainment? Nothing?
If he'd said most even I could have kept going but as it is I was just laughing too hard to read. I'll have to try again when I'm in a particularly sombre mood.
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
Re:
The fact that iTunes may be a bunch of money grubbing scum and get to keep more of their 30% than the retail stores got to keep of their 40+% still doesn't make them comparable to a label. And whether they are charging too high a percentage as a retailer or not 30% is still less cost to the artist than 41% last time I looked.
As for the foray into "Taylor Swift Live", do you have any figures to support a wholsale price of $19 or were you just ASSuming?
On the post: DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now there's an idea. I think I'll just go buy myself a legitimate 1080p download of the "just re-released on bluray" Pulp Fiction. Oh.. that's a shame I don't seem to be able to find one that's not (probably) infringing. In fact searching for it I don't see one offering I could "trust" not to be infringing. It seems my only choice for legitimate HD content is a little plastic disc. What was that about comparing REAL models?
Fair? possibly not. Honest? Yes it was a 100% honest, if facetious, opinion based on observation.
Oh, and:
Aaaaaand again with the "wanting stuff for free" rant. If you dislike it so much offer the customer a CHOICE. Personally I don't mind sharing a bit of bandwidth since a/ I can control it and b/ I can get a Linux distro or appliance server down in a 10th of the time it would take otherwise. But if sharing your toys and playing nicely isn't your thing that's up to you.
On the post: DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well yes and no. That's exactly what willhappen/is happening. Except the playing field isn't level so it isn't happening as fast as it should. Unless, I suppose, you consider it acceptable as part of a business model to be able to buy laws to prop up your business in against any emerging competition that doesn't happen to have several billion lying around to "lobby" with.
It's both and service is a product too. Cars took off not when cars turned out to be "better" than horses, but when they were better AND accessible AND cheaper due to mass production.
You do know that every time you yark on about "giving stuff away doesn't work" you sound dumb, right? Not one person in this thread mentioned "the free distribution model" but you. I wasn't aware it was singular either.
They only do in your tiny little universe inside your head. Most articles and comments about business models I've seen round here talk about different ways of using legitimate content. Netflix for example. On the other hand you, like the major content companies seem to have one of 2 responses to companies or ideas like that; 1/ [put fingers in ears] "La la la la la I'm not listening to you, you can't make me so there!" 2/ "Oh, we didn't think that would work, right well now you owe us ummmmmm a Gazillion dollars in extra licensing fees that we've just invented on top of the ones we agreed to in the first place. Why? Umm well because only WE are allowed to make ANY money whatsoever of our stuff (It's OURS OURS OURS SO THERE!!!) and you're just making too dang much even though you're paying us."
On the post: US Returns JotForm.com Domain; Still Refuses To Say What Happened
Re: Re: Go Daddy
Sorry, going to have to call BS on that one. That's as tenuous as a media company claiming to have "lost" £10bn they didn't have in the first place due to piracy. If they're still growing they've "lost" nothing, their growth has just slowed. An effect sure, which may even have scared them a bit, but not a loss.
On the post: DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'
Re: Re: Re:
Let's stop apologising for guys who run studios that expect everyone to pay though the nose for mediocre product with zero delivery or service. It just seems stupid to support them.
On the post: DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'
Re: Re:
"Torrents are not efficient, except for the ways in which they are efficient." Interesting observation.
Soooo making, for example, an official release with an appropriate hash that's independantly checkable wouldn't go some way to solving versioning, or a little bit of thought and development from someone in whose intrerests it would be to make it more efficient? And as it is, you'd say bit-torrents were far less efficient than, say, shipping little plastic disks everywhere?
I think what you meant was "I can't think of a good way to be able to charge a boat-load of cash for every single peer-to-peer byte of data moved, nor can I think of a justification I could use to charge enough to average at least 1000% profit per item that anyone would swallow"
On the post: DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'
Re:
That's known as the "Redbeard Rum" argument:
"Isn't it usual to have a crew on a ship?"
"Opinion is divided; All the other Captains say it is, I say it isn't"
On the post: MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content
Re: Re: Re:
SO is the problem that my "utopia" isn't possible, or that a bunch or moron corporations are too scared of what I "might" do with a film to allow me to do it legally and pay for it once?
Again, an artificial system to limit what is possible is not progress. The aim should be to make money out of the possibilities not pretend they don't exist.
On the post: MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content
Re:
Ah ha ha hahaha hahahahahahahaha hAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
That's about the funniest thing I think I've ever seen in print.... possibly ever.
I've bought rather a lot of content thank you very much and I've yet to see one piece offered in ANY format that I can use on my windows computer (with Bluray drive), laptop (DVD only but HD screen), Linux machine (no drive at all), media box connected to High-def television, tablet, smartphone, iPod and any other device I might fancy at the time and see in the best possible format on whatever device I like without having to jump through hoops to get it there or prove every 15 seconds I paid for it.
The fact that you happen to think I'm a nasty, evil piraty pirate is not my problem. I paid for the content, I want to be able to watch it whenever and wherever I want. When you have a product that can do that, I might even be willing to pay a few more sheckles for it instead of fishing the trash out of the bargain bin when it's cheap enough for me to bother.
Doesn't exist... so stop pretending it does and since I can only assume with lines like that that you work for such an organisation, try giving me what I ask for - I will lay you a large bet you'll make more money than you do now that way no matter how may people copy it.
On the post: More Details Emerge On Questionable UK Seizure Of Music Blog
Re:
We've hated it for a quite a number of years thank you very much and wish those the other side of the political pond would stick to things they know about like "world series" sports that no other country plays. We suck bad enough at infringing on personal freedoms all by ourselves without "you lot" getting involved thanks.
On the post: More Details Emerge On Questionable UK Seizure Of Music Blog
Re: Re: When math gets wierd
Probably Douglas Adams just decided that trees were a really bad idea and went back to the ocean. Wish the RIAA did too.....
On the post: Sony Says Raising Prices On Whitney Houston Music Was A 'Mistake'
Re: Couldn't it be . . .
I'm unclear to me how that would be less of a rip-off, though as you say somewhat less emotive. I'd also expect in that case to see an awful lot of planted stories to get people talking about somewhat forgotten artists as an excuse to jack the prices up, but perhaps that's just me being cynical.
On the post: Sony Says Raising Prices On Whitney Houston Music Was A 'Mistake'
Re: Re: Re:
A nice try - an attempt to broadly imply that there were many other albums that changed price as well as a sweep at implying that you are familiar with the UK ITunes site and know what you're talking about. Except that even after the sweeping implication, the sarcasm and the pointless ad-homenim attack I still spotted, as I'm sure did many others, that you offered not one shred of corroboration. Also, since I bothered to read the link to the apology article, I find that:
and
You'd have thought they'd have mentioned a good excuse like a faulty exchange rate affecting multiple items and not just those two at that point wouldn't you?
So I'm afraid your exchange rate "explanation" looks a little thin.
On the post: TuneCore: RIAA Has Become A Part Of The Problem For Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I would bet you that each artist makes a gazillion dollars a minute just for thinking about using the service.
Oh... I'm sorry I thought we were playing "Who can make the most obviously totally unsubtantiated and pulled out of their arse claim".
That would be worse than the label charging all those costs back to the artist with the addition of plenty of interest and dubious accounting would it?
On the post: If Politicians Pushing SOPA/PIPA Want To Create Jobs, They Should Support The Internet -- And Stop Treating Copyright Companies As Special
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mike C's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically correct perhaps if you consider "valid rebuttal" to only include empirical evidence of the success of an alternative. Since the content companies have gone out of their way at every point to stifle/sue/kill any possible lower priced legal alternative, saying there's no hard evidence is like a banker shouting "You can't prove the economy would be better if we hadn't sold all those sub-prime mortgages and derivatives".
On the other hand, every bit of extrapolated evidence (that hasn't been paid for by the companies that benefit) and every bit of anecdotal evidence, as well as the application of logic suggest otherwise.
And while we're on the subject of anecdotal evidence, I took my child (young enough to qualify for a "discount") to the cinema for the first time in many years recently and for the 2 of us it cost the equivalent of $60 to see a so-so "hollywood blockbuster". More than anything it reminded me why I don't bother going to the cinema any more.
Given that at one time I used to go on average once every 2 weeks, that I have now far more spare money than I did then and no more access to copied fare than I did then (technically less - years ago I used to borrow videos from someone who had a habit of getting them before cinema release in the UK) do you think the drop in my cinema attendance is:
A/ Because I've suddenly started wanting everything for free despite more desposable income and I've turned into a nasty piraty pirate?
Or:
B/ Because the quality of the cinema offering has gone down while the price has gone through the roof and for the few films worth watching I'm now happy to wait the 6 months 'til they are £3 in the DVD bargain bin?
So price/value isn't a provable factor? yeah... right.
Oh, and I could be wrong but far as I know in the UK at least, a drug has to be specifically declared illegal so whatever the latest designer drug is tends to be legal for a while 'til the government decides it's nasty and evil and not "nice" like say nicotine. For example, according to a quick google search mephedrone didn't become illegal in the UK 'til 2010 and from memory ecstasy was also legal when it first became popular.
So yes, from 1 viewpoint, the government's "whack-a-mole" approach to drugs could draw quite a reasonable parallel to the attempts to "combat" both piracy, and also "combat" any attempts to offer legal alternatives (e.g. suing for the length of the piece of cable between the DVD player and the TV when renting a DVD.)
On the post: Paramount Wants To Talk To Students About How They're All Thieves & Then Ask For Ideas On What To Do
Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
Like.... that breath you just took of air that doesn't belong to you?
Or that pebble you picked up off a beach on holiday?
Or all that water that evaporated from the local reservior and fell as rain on YOUR house?
Or that bird that got stuck in the grill of your car?
Yes, I know that's tenuous, but if you're going to say stupid stuff then I get to as well.
"Ownership" is a tenuous enough fabrication of society anyway and not some universal truth. Trying to apply it to an entirely imaginary concept and call it the same makes no sense.
Try taking a breath from foaming at the mouth, think about what it is you think you "own", then have a reasoned debate about it why don't you?
Next >>