you do realize that 2008 was a recession year, right? and that a 3% growth during a recession is actually quite an accomplishment... Pat yourself on the back, rather than complain about that the growth wasn't big...
Actually no, I don't think $10 for Avatar was a good deal.
I paid 11 euros for my ticket. And I thought it was a rip off.
Let's just forget about the 8 euro for popcorn and drinks.
Sure, new technology and long movie and all that.
But the experience for me didn't warrant the price tag.
Mind you, I have a lazy eye, so I couldn't quite see it all in 3D (in fact, the movie gave me a blistering headache), but my friends wanted to see it in 3D.
It's a decent film, but to me it wasn't worth 11 euros.
The proxy itself isn't illegal (just as P2P programs/sites aren't in and of themselves illegal), but if you use it to watch video you are not entitled to watch (because of licensing), then you are either breaking a law (not sure) or at the very least in violation of the terms of service of the website you are accessing.
I make a copy of all your digital music, have I committed theft?
Well let's see... do you still have access to your digital music? Yes? then it's no theft.
It may be illegal under the copyright law, (depends on the situation), but it does not flag any other laws.
Copyright infringement does not equal theft, never has, and never will be.
"great disincentive to continue to produce leading to a great society costs"
Yes, because since the rise of P2P networks no new music has been made...(/sarcasm)
World of Warcraft uses bittorrent to distribute their patches.
With Skype you use P2P technology to communicate between eachother.
Two VERY LEGAL uses of bittorrent and p2p, and yet, under these new sets of rules they would be blocked. And Bittorrent can and is being used for other legal means, like linux distros, new artists who actually WANT to share their music with their fans, etc etc etc etc.
So you can go fornicate with yourself, if you continue equating P2P with illegal filesharing.
"P2P by it's very nature is a very inefficient way to move data, it is slower than direct connection, requires a ton more overhead, and very often overloads networks by using them in ways there were not created to go."
And yet, it does help alleviate bandwidth usage of the server. It's better to have a 1000 peer-owned 'servers' offering a single packet to another 1000 other peers, then to have those 1000 peers download it from 1 server.
"In the end, no provider should be obliged to be part of illegal activity."
Does the phone company have the right to cut you off if you call another company to illegally share your company's trade secrets with them?
Does the gas company have the right to cut you off, if you use your oven to commit suicide?
Does the electrical company have the right to cut you off, if you grow weedplants in your basement?
Try looking beyond the borders of the US, you know, the rest of the world? Where, despite your thoughts perhaps, we do have high-speed internet.
FYI, the video streams of ABC.com are closed for non-US citizens. Of course there are ways around it, but that's just as illegal as downloading it off of a torrent server and can cause a lot of headaches that you don't want.
So it's the fans fault for not living in the US that their experience will be spoiled and can't deliver any input in the conversation around the shows?
Are you delusional?
Yes CWF+RTB isn't new... As Mike has said over and over again... so it's proven its worth in the past, why then do people feel the need to bash the idea over and over again.
You know it makes good business sense... treat your customers right, offer them stuff to buy at prices they are willing to pay, and you will get an audience, provided you've got talent.
It might not make you a gazillion dollars, or pay for a yacht and 3 houses on Malibu, but with luck, you might be able to live off your work, like the rest of the working stiffs.
Ever used Facebook?
If the page is set to private, you can't see what's on the page without becoming a 'fan'. Same as with people not being able to see your info, unless people become "friends".
So, no it is not like signing your name in agreement. How can you agree with something that you haven't even read yet?
Would I risk detention if I became a "Facebook fan" of TAM?
right now for paper books you have:
- money for the publisher
- money for the author
- ink costs
- printing costs
- paper costs
- distribution costs
- storage costs
with ebooks:
- money for the publisher
- money for the author
- storage costs
- distribution costs
The costs have been slashed for the digital format.
And don't give me the whole "conversion cost" malarkey. It's already in a digital format.
And DRM should not be put on there, unless you want to lower the price even further. (As a DRMed product is worth less than an unDRMed product)
Instead of trying to punish the "illegal" downloaders, why not give incentives to your customers.
Sell some product, and with each sold product there is a little unique code in the box or with the download. With that code, the buyer can register himself at a website, and you can give him or her incentives to promote the works to his family and friends. Like, for instance, offer a discount on other copies of the disc, the more people he or she helps to the product the higher the discount, and offer special swag.
That way fans can support their bands, and the band knows who their fans are and where they live, so they could specifically tour in those regions.
When did Mike say that? Nice try to make a strawman...
Look, let's just face facts here.
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, but it is a natural reaction from the market.
It's a reaction to years and years of overpricing of content, the locking up content, the infinite extensions of copyright laws, and the secrecy around ACTA.
If you could somehow replicate cars without having to spend much or any materials, the price of cars would go down significantly, because the cost of the production of the cars become 0 or close to 0.
Now, the *value* of the car might still be the same, the *cost* of said car should not.
On the internet, the distribution costs for digital copies of cultural products are near 0. (just bandwidth and storage), and yet, if you want to purchase that, you have to pay almost the same price you'd get for buying a physical good. Meanwhile the companies providing those copies get to keep larger chunks of the money in their pockets. (same or lower percentage go to the artists as royalties)
Keep in mind, your market knows this, and reacts in kind. "Ok, so you charge a lot for cheaply distributed music, and then don't give your artists the same or a bigger cut, then why should I pay?"
Many new artists can sell their stuff online. And you can embracy so-called piracy as marketing for your other money-making venues, such as performances, licencing deals, and other deals you can think of.
You don't have to criminalize your fan base.
There has so far been no study that could prove the correlation between copyright infringement and lost sales, because the infringement also induced sales.
Your worst nightmare should not be 'piracy', but rather obscurity. It's better to be known and shared and sell a few things, rather than be unknown and not sell a thing.
Another thing, look at the box office figures and correlate those to the movies popular on p2p networks. What do you see? The big ticket movies, that rakes in millions in the first box office weekends, are also the ones downloaded the most. If no-one pays for content anymore, where do those millions come from?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take your principle
Then the resale of copyrights should be made illegal, as they make no sense whatsoever.
I create something, and I get protection from the government for a limited time over that creative work. I can then hand over the work a corporation, and they can sell the work in my name. Why would I, as an artist, then also hand over all my rights to MY work over to them? What incentive would I as an artist have to create new works, if all I get for it is a bit of royalty and none of the rights to my creative works?
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: Re: Re: We, the People
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: Re: Re: Re: We, the People
I paid 11 euros for my ticket. And I thought it was a rip off.
Let's just forget about the 8 euro for popcorn and drinks.
Sure, new technology and long movie and all that.
But the experience for me didn't warrant the price tag.
Mind you, I have a lazy eye, so I couldn't quite see it all in 3D (in fact, the movie gave me a blistering headache), but my friends wanted to see it in 3D.
It's a decent film, but to me it wasn't worth 11 euros.
(the regular 2D version was 'only' 9 euros)
On the post: Google Discovers -- Again, Though No One Remembers -- That People Don't Like Paying For Video Online
I wish I made $1000 a day
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Re: Re: Re: Re: People waited long.
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re: Re: Re: 0 Cost?
Well let's see... do you still have access to your digital music? Yes? then it's no theft.
It may be illegal under the copyright law, (depends on the situation), but it does not flag any other laws.
Copyright infringement does not equal theft, never has, and never will be.
"great disincentive to continue to produce leading to a great society costs"
Yes, because since the rise of P2P networks no new music has been made...(/sarcasm)
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re: Re: Re:
With Skype you use P2P technology to communicate between eachother.
Two VERY LEGAL uses of bittorrent and p2p, and yet, under these new sets of rules they would be blocked. And Bittorrent can and is being used for other legal means, like linux distros, new artists who actually WANT to share their music with their fans, etc etc etc etc.
So you can go fornicate with yourself, if you continue equating P2P with illegal filesharing.
"P2P by it's very nature is a very inefficient way to move data, it is slower than direct connection, requires a ton more overhead, and very often overloads networks by using them in ways there were not created to go."
And yet, it does help alleviate bandwidth usage of the server. It's better to have a 1000 peer-owned 'servers' offering a single packet to another 1000 other peers, then to have those 1000 peers download it from 1 server.
"In the end, no provider should be obliged to be part of illegal activity."
Does the phone company have the right to cut you off if you call another company to illegally share your company's trade secrets with them?
Does the gas company have the right to cut you off, if you use your oven to commit suicide?
Does the electrical company have the right to cut you off, if you grow weedplants in your basement?
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Re: Re: People waited long.
FYI, the video streams of ABC.com are closed for non-US citizens. Of course there are ways around it, but that's just as illegal as downloading it off of a torrent server and can cause a lot of headaches that you don't want.
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Re: Re: Re:
So it's the fans fault for not living in the US that their experience will be spoiled and can't deliver any input in the conversation around the shows?
Are you delusional?
On the post: Billboard Gets Snarky; Not A Believer In CwF + RtB
Re: Re:
You know it makes good business sense... treat your customers right, offer them stuff to buy at prices they are willing to pay, and you will get an audience, provided you've got talent.
It might not make you a gazillion dollars, or pay for a yacht and 3 houses on Malibu, but with luck, you might be able to live off your work, like the rest of the working stiffs.
On the post: Students Given Detention Just For Becoming 'Fans' Of A Page Making Fun Of A Teacher
Re:
If the page is set to private, you can't see what's on the page without becoming a 'fan'. Same as with people not being able to see your info, unless people become "friends".
So, no it is not like signing your name in agreement. How can you agree with something that you haven't even read yet?
Would I risk detention if I became a "Facebook fan" of TAM?
On the post: Publishers Beginning To Recognize The Value Of Free... Even As They Fight $10 eBooks
Re: Re:
right now for paper books you have:
- money for the publisher
- money for the author
- ink costs
- printing costs
- paper costs
- distribution costs
- storage costs
with ebooks:
- money for the publisher
- money for the author
- storage costs
- distribution costs
The costs have been slashed for the digital format.
And don't give me the whole "conversion cost" malarkey. It's already in a digital format.
And DRM should not be put on there, unless you want to lower the price even further. (As a DRMed product is worth less than an unDRMed product)
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
I may have a solution
Sell some product, and with each sold product there is a little unique code in the box or with the download. With that code, the buyer can register himself at a website, and you can give him or her incentives to promote the works to his family and friends. Like, for instance, offer a discount on other copies of the disc, the more people he or she helps to the product the higher the discount, and offer special swag.
That way fans can support their bands, and the band knows who their fans are and where they live, so they could specifically tour in those regions.
On the post: Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement
Re: Re:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050204-4587.html
Or that they tried to sue an elderly couple that only used the Internet to email to relatives and didn't even have p2p software installed?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3140160.stm
Or that they tried to sue a family that didn't even have a computer?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060424-6662.html
On the post: Yes, Three Strikes Laws Have Unintended Consequences That Even Music Industry Execs Hate
Turns out
On the post: If A Video Is Filmed By Chimps... Who Owns The Copyright?
On the post: Vancouver Olympics 'Brand Protection Guidelines' Almost Entirely Arbitrary
Re:
On the post: Give A Man A Fish... And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, let's just face facts here.
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, but it is a natural reaction from the market.
It's a reaction to years and years of overpricing of content, the locking up content, the infinite extensions of copyright laws, and the secrecy around ACTA.
If you could somehow replicate cars without having to spend much or any materials, the price of cars would go down significantly, because the cost of the production of the cars become 0 or close to 0.
Now, the *value* of the car might still be the same, the *cost* of said car should not.
On the internet, the distribution costs for digital copies of cultural products are near 0. (just bandwidth and storage), and yet, if you want to purchase that, you have to pay almost the same price you'd get for buying a physical good. Meanwhile the companies providing those copies get to keep larger chunks of the money in their pockets. (same or lower percentage go to the artists as royalties)
Keep in mind, your market knows this, and reacts in kind. "Ok, so you charge a lot for cheaply distributed music, and then don't give your artists the same or a bigger cut, then why should I pay?"
Many new artists can sell their stuff online. And you can embracy so-called piracy as marketing for your other money-making venues, such as performances, licencing deals, and other deals you can think of.
You don't have to criminalize your fan base.
There has so far been no study that could prove the correlation between copyright infringement and lost sales, because the infringement also induced sales.
Your worst nightmare should not be 'piracy', but rather obscurity. It's better to be known and shared and sell a few things, rather than be unknown and not sell a thing.
Another thing, look at the box office figures and correlate those to the movies popular on p2p networks. What do you see? The big ticket movies, that rakes in millions in the first box office weekends, are also the ones downloaded the most. If no-one pays for content anymore, where do those millions come from?
On the post: Give A Man A Fish... And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take your principle
I create something, and I get protection from the government for a limited time over that creative work. I can then hand over the work a corporation, and they can sell the work in my name. Why would I, as an artist, then also hand over all my rights to MY work over to them? What incentive would I as an artist have to create new works, if all I get for it is a bit of royalty and none of the rights to my creative works?
Next >>