I just wanted to point out that the band does not get to spend that advance. The recording studio, the producer, the engineers all need to get paid. The parties thrown by the labels are paid for out of the advance. The packaging of the CDs. All marketing materials, including the CDs sent to DJs and radio stations are paid for out of the advance. I remember reading about a band, which I cannot find now, that after everyone was paid, they ended up getting much less than they were making before being signed.
And then there's the second part of this. Sure, the label paid $400,000 as an advance, but when there is a hit record/single involved, the label still makes millions off the recordings. And it certainly helps when the label is not keeping track of what is owed to the artist.
"the general major label attitude towards "unrecouped" bands is that the accounting is meaningless, so they don't even bother"
I think the intent and purpose of this is to keep such bands unrecouped. If accurate records are kept as to how much is earned, eventually the advance will be repaid. The labels do not want that to happen. Hence, they simply do not keep track of it.
"Subscriptions are "assured sales", which significantly support the ad rates."
You're proving Mike's point. Your argument is essentially that while they don't make a lot of money on subscriptions, subscriptions do lead to higher ad rates. Which is where they make their real money, through ad rates. That's exactly what Mike said.
So a guy "steals" your "character" in a game. If we assume that there was actual theft, we have to assume that the "character" was property owned by the victim.
So here's the deal, if the "character" is property owned by the victim, what if the company hosting the game/character goes bankrupt or simply pulls the plug. Would the company also be liable for theft of the "character"?
The second paragraph is also a bit troubling, as it would require a contributory infringement setup, or an inducement standard.
I have no doubt that the safe harbors provided by the DMCA where merely a part of a trojan horse used by the content industries. In other words, the content industry initially wanted safe harbors included, because that got the ISPs behind the DMCA, or at least the ISPs withdrew their objections to the DMCA.
However, now that the DMCA is the law, it's been fighting ever since to get the safe harbors removed. Failing in that regard the content industry is trying to get rid of the safe harbors by sneaking it in a treaty. This is simply pure underhanded slimy greed.
"I think what you are missing is the assumption that watching the movie at home is the same as watching it at the theater."
That's exactly what I was going to say. People go to movies in the theater for the experience. That's exactly why Pixar was able to re-release the first two Toy Story movies to the theaters. That's exactly why the Polar Express played in theaters a year after its release. That's exactly why the Nightmare Before Christmas was able to be re-released to the theaters well after its initial release. And that's why Fox was able to re-release the first three Star Wars movies to the theaters, decades after the fact.
Going to the theater to see a movie is an experience people are willing to pay for. If the movie is good, of course.
"Hollywood's slothlike pace in offering movie fans what they want in terms of online services and video on demand"
I've said this many times, I wish you could buy the blu-ray/DVD of a movie on the way out of the theater. You'd take your ticket stub to the counter and they'd allow you to buy it.
Of course these movies would be fully priced. And especially with kids' movies, the studios could make a fortune milking parents who want to please their kids. "Can we get it now, dad, can we get it now?!"
What he means is that in the old days the infrastructure used by cable companies was open. And that meant that anyone could build a device to connect to it. That's one of the reasons why VCRs took off, because they were essentially plug and play. You simply plugged them into your cable TV coax, then to your TV, and it simply worked.
Nowadays each provider, Comcast, Charter, Dish, etc, owns its own proprietary infrastructure. The fact that you can choose between multiple proprietary infrastructures does not change the fact that a company such as TiVo is screwed. Even if there are 1000 providers each with its own proprietary infrastructure, TiVo would still be locked out.
But not only is TiVo locked out, so is the next great living room invention. Any hardware manufacturer has to get permission from each and every proprietary TV provider in order to get into everyone's living room.
"TiVo basically created this market and owned it for years -- but then got complacent"
You can't blame it all on TiVo. Back when nearly everyone watched TV with regular good old fashion analog cable TV, it was easy for TiVo to get into everyone's living room.
But now that most people are using proprietary digital cable and satellite services, TiVo is basically screwed. TiVo can only service people watching TV on those services at the discretion of the carrier. And let's face it, the carrier would rather rent/lease its own product.
With today's proprietary technology, the VCR never would have succeeded because it would have been impossible to sell one that worked in most homes. That's the same problem TiVo faces.
I love the zero-sum game Microsoft plays. It's not enough to win (and other than Windows and Office, Microsoft rarely wins*) It's about making the competition lose.
This fits in perfectly with that strategy. Even if the plan fails, it makes Google a slightly lesser search engine because an entire website is removed from it.
It also puts pressure on Google to start paying websites to promote them, which makes no sense. I don't know any yellow-pages type director listing which pays companies to publish phone numbers. It's always the other way around.
Of course this will fail because it's not enough for people to switch search engines. The stories about the news found on Rupert Murdoch's websites can and will be found on other sites via Google. The average user would never see any difference. While traffic to Rupert Murdoch's websites will drop significantly.
* And don't even mention the XBox/360. Sure they have sold a lot of them, but overall the company has lost billions on them. Losing billions of dollars is in no way a success.
The better title would have been: "Lily Allen: I don't know the difference between price and value." That's the real gist of her problem. She thinks that because people are not paying for her music, that they have no value.
Which is complete BS. I don't pay for Google, the Firefox browser, and plenty of other things, but I still value them.
Conversely, if I tried to sell my shit on ebay, the value would be the same regardless of the price I put on it.
"I'm just not sure that playing the technicality card does that job effectively"
Maybe you're not getting what I'm saying, or maybe you simply don't care, but technicalities do matter. You seem to think that we should allow our government to take any action it wants, regardless of any written law, merely to serve some stated purpose.
Let's say for example that it's a felony to have 50 or more grams of cocaine. Let's assume that someone is charged because he had 49.9 grams. Under your theory, because the stated purpose of eliminate cocaine use is served, the guy should get a felony. I wholeheartedly disagree.
We should enforce laws only as written and we should not allow our government to act arbitrarily without legal authority merely to achieve some stated purpose.
But to reiterate my earlier point. Even if you share twice as much of the song/video that you've downloaded, chances are that you shared that data to possibly hundreds of people.
Is each portion of non-sequential data you're shared to individuals worthy of copyright protection? Maybe it will in the future, but I don't see how it is under the law now.
But as Mike says, most judges would never understand this.
On the post: Warner Music's Royalty Statements: Works Of Fiction
Re:
And then there's the second part of this. Sure, the label paid $400,000 as an advance, but when there is a hit record/single involved, the label still makes millions off the recordings. And it certainly helps when the label is not keeping track of what is owed to the artist.
On the post: Warner Music's Royalty Statements: Works Of Fiction
I think the intent and purpose of this is to keep such bands unrecouped. If accurate records are kept as to how much is earned, eventually the advance will be repaid. The labels do not want that to happen. Hence, they simply do not keep track of it.
On the post: Free Content Undermines Democracy?
Re:
You're proving Mike's point. Your argument is essentially that while they don't make a lot of money on subscriptions, subscriptions do lead to higher ad rates. Which is where they make their real money, through ad rates. That's exactly what Mike said.
On the post: Free Content Undermines Democracy?
If we look at Luckhurst's argument from a different angle, this is what we get:
Does that many any fricken sense?! That might be true of capitalism, but it is certainly the opposite of what democracy needs to survive.
On the post: If You Gain Unauthorized Access To A Character In A Virtual World, Is It Theft?
Re: Re:
Actually, that was my point exactly. Of course the guy does not "own" the character. My point was to show how utterly ridiculous the assertion is.
On the post: If You Gain Unauthorized Access To A Character In A Virtual World, Is It Theft?
So here's the deal, if the "character" is property owned by the victim, what if the company hosting the game/character goes bankrupt or simply pulls the plug. Would the company also be liable for theft of the "character"?
On the post: More ACTA Leaks; Still Looking Really Bad
I have no doubt that the safe harbors provided by the DMCA where merely a part of a trojan horse used by the content industries. In other words, the content industry initially wanted safe harbors included, because that got the ISPs behind the DMCA, or at least the ISPs withdrew their objections to the DMCA.
However, now that the DMCA is the law, it's been fighting ever since to get the safe harbors removed. Failing in that regard the content industry is trying to get rid of the safe harbors by sneaking it in a treaty. This is simply pure underhanded slimy greed.
On the post: One Misguided Tweet Is 'Indisputable' Evidence That Piracy Harms Movies?
Re: Re: Re:
What Hulser said.
On the post: One Misguided Tweet Is 'Indisputable' Evidence That Piracy Harms Movies?
Re: Re: Re:
That's exactly what I was going to say. People go to movies in the theater for the experience. That's exactly why Pixar was able to re-release the first two Toy Story movies to the theaters. That's exactly why the Polar Express played in theaters a year after its release. That's exactly why the Nightmare Before Christmas was able to be re-released to the theaters well after its initial release. And that's why Fox was able to re-release the first three Star Wars movies to the theaters, decades after the fact.
Going to the theater to see a movie is an experience people are willing to pay for. If the movie is good, of course.
On the post: One Misguided Tweet Is 'Indisputable' Evidence That Piracy Harms Movies?
I've said this many times, I wish you could buy the blu-ray/DVD of a movie on the way out of the theater. You'd take your ticket stub to the counter and they'd allow you to buy it.
Of course these movies would be fully priced. And especially with kids' movies, the studios could make a fortune milking parents who want to please their kids. "Can we get it now, dad, can we get it now?!"
On the post: Suing For Patent Infringement No Replacement For Actually Building A Real Business
Re: Re:
Nowadays each provider, Comcast, Charter, Dish, etc, owns its own proprietary infrastructure. The fact that you can choose between multiple proprietary infrastructures does not change the fact that a company such as TiVo is screwed. Even if there are 1000 providers each with its own proprietary infrastructure, TiVo would still be locked out.
But not only is TiVo locked out, so is the next great living room invention. Any hardware manufacturer has to get permission from each and every proprietary TV provider in order to get into everyone's living room.
On the post: Suing For Patent Infringement No Replacement For Actually Building A Real Business
You can't blame it all on TiVo. Back when nearly everyone watched TV with regular good old fashion analog cable TV, it was easy for TiVo to get into everyone's living room.
But now that most people are using proprietary digital cable and satellite services, TiVo is basically screwed. TiVo can only service people watching TV on those services at the discretion of the carrier. And let's face it, the carrier would rather rent/lease its own product.
With today's proprietary technology, the VCR never would have succeeded because it would have been impossible to sell one that worked in most homes. That's the same problem TiVo faces.
On the post: Jury Says Fictional Character Can Be Libelous
On the post: Publishers Getting The Wrong Message Over eBook Piracy
Re:
On the post: Publishers Getting The Wrong Message Over eBook Piracy
Oh yeah, because that worked out so well with online music sales!
On the post: Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users
This fits in perfectly with that strategy. Even if the plan fails, it makes Google a slightly lesser search engine because an entire website is removed from it.
It also puts pressure on Google to start paying websites to promote them, which makes no sense. I don't know any yellow-pages type director listing which pays companies to publish phone numbers. It's always the other way around.
Of course this will fail because it's not enough for people to switch search engines. The stories about the news found on Rupert Murdoch's websites can and will be found on other sites via Google. The average user would never see any difference. While traffic to Rupert Murdoch's websites will drop significantly.
* And don't even mention the XBox/360. Sure they have sold a lot of them, but overall the company has lost billions on them. Losing billions of dollars is in no way a success.
On the post: Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free
Which is complete BS. I don't pay for Google, the Firefox browser, and plenty of other things, but I still value them.
Conversely, if I tried to sell my shit on ebay, the value would be the same regardless of the price I put on it.
On the post: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Nah...
Maybe you're not getting what I'm saying, or maybe you simply don't care, but technicalities do matter. You seem to think that we should allow our government to take any action it wants, regardless of any written law, merely to serve some stated purpose.
Let's say for example that it's a felony to have 50 or more grams of cocaine. Let's assume that someone is charged because he had 49.9 grams. Under your theory, because the stated purpose of eliminate cocaine use is served, the guy should get a felony. I wholeheartedly disagree.
We should enforce laws only as written and we should not allow our government to act arbitrarily without legal authority merely to achieve some stated purpose.
On the post: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?
Re: true...but
But to reiterate my earlier point. Even if you share twice as much of the song/video that you've downloaded, chances are that you shared that data to possibly hundreds of people.
Is each portion of non-sequential data you're shared to individuals worthy of copyright protection? Maybe it will in the future, but I don't see how it is under the law now.
But as Mike says, most judges would never understand this.
On the post: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Nah...
Ooops, I meant our laws...
Next >>