Well, you missed the part where he said of the 30% that have internet connections, 25% know what is going on. That 25% part wuadruples the number again. Here is his exact statement again:
"Just in the United States a good 30% have connections to the internet, out of those maybe 25% have the knowledge to know what is actually going on and if even 1% of those users would do something, voice their opinion, call their congressman, 1,000,000 voices could be heard."
So that's 1,000,000/1%/25%/30%= 1,333,333,333. My math was spot on.
For example, Chris Anderson's book "Free" was downloaded more than 250,000 times, according to his blog. So far I don't believe that it has sold more than a tenth of that in the U.S.
Ok, lets just look at that statement for a second. Less than a tenth of 250,000? Well "less than a tenth" is ambiguous, and I cannot find actual sales figures, so I'll go on the side of caution and say 5%. 5% of 250,000 is 12,500 copies of the book sold. Now according to Publisher's Weekly:
“Here’s the reality of the book industry: in 2004, 950,000 titles out of the 1.2 million tracked by Nielsen Bookscan sold fewer than 99 copies. Another 200,000 sold fewer than 1,000 copies. Only 25,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. The average book in America sells about 500 copies” (Publishers Weekly, July 17, 2006).
So, if 12,500 copies of "Free" sold, then that puts "Free" in the top 2% of books sold. Do you really think his publisher is disappointed with that? Do you really think that if he hadn't been giving it away in the way he did that he would have sold even more?
Based on the above info nearly 80% of books don't even sell 99 copies. It looks as though obscurity is actually the largest cause of "lost sales".
Many movies come out that I would like to watch, but for one reason or another the logistics of going to the theater to see them do not work out. Plus there is the fact that the theater does not really offer an experience I enjoy: I like to drink a beer while I watch a movie (in the US it is extremely rare for movie theaters to serve alcohol); I like to be able to pause the movie if I want to use the restroom or have a cigarette; For some movies it is nice to be able to pause the movie to discuss the plotline, or to rewind a part if you miss a piece of dialogue or want to re-watch an exiting part.
Now, if the option were available I would pay for a digital download, or rent or buy the DVD while the movie is still fresh. But since that is not currently an option I often don't watch the movie at all, because by the time it comes out on home formats I have lost interest in it.
To me this is a very good example of a "lost sale". This is not a lost sale due to piracy of any sort, but a lost sale due to the structure of the release windows.
Last I checked the iPhone came out over 2 years ago (June 29 2007 in the US). What took Nokia so long to realize the patent infringement?
Did they really sit around for two years before realizing "hey, the iPhone uses our technology" or maybe they decided to wait to see if the iPhone was popular before filing suit, that way they could claim that x% of iPhone sales were due to their proprietary technology that Apple "stole".
We keep hearing from patent system supporters how the patent system is necessary because, without it, the market leader would always just immediately copy the upstart and "steal" their idea.
Heh heh. I recognize where this one came from: everyone's favorite AC! I wonder if he has any response, or if he'll just pretend that he never said it.
What you are missing is that the current "successes" are limited to either people with so much money they can fail and look good (NIN, Radiohead), or to marginal players for whom making slightly more than working in a warehouse is good.
The old "It only works for small and big artists, but not the ones in between" Argument. It's really such a flimsy argument I am quite surprised you would try to use it again.
An artist will write only so many songs in their life, they will record only so many albums. Those are things that are rare, revered. Trent Reznors ability to parrot his own songs in public is nice, but really, it's the creation of those new songs that is rare and unique. He released probably less than 20 songs this year, but did 100+ concerts. Which one is more rare? Which one is enjoyed every day, and which one is just a memory for a couple of million people?
You forgot the last and most important part of those questions: Which one have fans have shown willingness to pay between $30 and $100 for(sometimes even more)? Which one is something that people have shown a reluctance to pay even 99 cents each for? Which one is actually scarce vs infinitely copyable for nearly 0 marginal cost?
and this is my point, fabchannel supposedly helps up and coming artists. It's hard to imagine that there aren't many unsigned up and coming artists.
Both of your premises are incorrect. Fabchannel's focus is not only on up and coming artists, and many up and coming artists will (naively) sign with any label that makes them an offer in order to hopefully increase their exposure.
You keeping hearing the song because the song remains the same: nobody is coming up with a valid and functional way to turn any of this into anything but more free stuff. The question keeps coming up because the answer isn't even good enough to make a grade school student happy.
You once again prove that you simply have not been paying attention. We give you example after example of ways in which the artists can make money. We give you example after example of artists that actually are making money while giving their music away. Yet you continue to make completely clueless statements such as this.
Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong point.
How many times do I have to repeat it? If books are entirely digital and free, there will be no books to buy. Don't you get it? No hard copies, no transactions, no money.
That is quite a slippery slope argument you make there. Let's just clarify the steps in that argument you made:
- Step 1: Digital, free copies= No paid digital copies and no hard copies.
Well, this is just foolishness. Tons of books are available digitally(paid and free) and also available in Hardcopy. Tor (Science fiction publisher) recently started releasing digital copies of many of their books for free. After downloading and reading about 10 of them I ended up purchasing about 5 of them in hard copy.
- Step 2: No hard copies = No Money
Once again, foolishness. There are many ways they can make money other than selling hard copies.
So your entire argument is based on these two steps. The first step is completely wrong, and even if is was right your second step is also completely wrong
I suppose you never learned that the slippery slope argument is always a weak argument to make.
Yes they do. The labels control public performance rights, so the venue has to sign a contract with the label in order host a performance act. The exception would be artists that are not signed to a label, or signed artists that have retained performance rights(currently very rare). In those cases the venue signs a contract with the artist instead of the label.
Quite simply, the problem is this: If everything is advertising, then NOTHING is the product.
You once again completely miss the point (you are really good at doing that). No-one is saying that everything is advertising. What is being said is that the things that are infinitely copyable for zero marginal cost can be used to promote and increase the sales of the scarce goods (Concerts, public appearances, physical goods etc.).
I'm not understanding this, if FabChannel was meant to help upcoming artists why didn't they just distribute content that the artists and venue allowed them to freely distribute?
Because the Artists and Venues are prohibited by their contracts with the labels from giving permission. Due to their contracts, only the labels have the right to give permission, and the labels are saying "no money, no content". So FabChannel cannot distribute content that they have permission to distribute because the labels are not giving them permission, even though the labels recognize the promotional and marketing value of it.
Re: (You still havent learned to use the subject field?)
OK, you give the music away so you can sell other products. I understand that. One of those other products is concerts. Now you want to give those away too?
Are you really saying that going to a concert and watching a video of a concert are equivalent? Have you ever been to a concert?
Is it your belief that musicians should only be in the business of selling T Shirts? Of course, without trademark regulations, they couldn't sell those either.
I know, it will be based on the good hearts of the fans that will just donate money to the musician because they like their music.
You have obviously not been paying attention. Have you not noticed the many examples that have been mentioned here showing the many ways artists can make money, aside from selling t-shirts or little plastic discs?
AC, You really have problems with reading comprehension. I'd say you were retarded, except I've met a number of developmentally disabled people who can grasp concepts much better than you seem to be able to.
Re: Re: Re: (AC still hasn't learned to use the subject field)
Okay, so you being the smart dude that you are, would you care to explain how a writer would make a living if his books, articles, and all his work product were available for free?
You visit here every day yet you apparently never understand what is being said. It's not about "give it away and pray" as you keep saying, and Mike has said numerous times that he doesn't like "give it away and pray". It's about using the infinitely copyable digital goods to promote and sell more scarce goods.
Your example of an author was perfectly illustrated in a number of recent articles here: Swedish author Unni Drougge posted free torrents of her Audio Book, and very quickly her Audio book jumped to the top of the paid audio book list. See that? She gave the Audio Book away for free, and sold more of the exact Audio book that she was giving away. link to techdirt article, Link to additional article
Another example is Peter Cooper, author of Begining Ruby. He advocates giving away his eBook in order to sell more copies of the physical book. Link to techdirt article, link to additional article
That's just two examples but there are lots of others, and authors make money in numerous ways (Consultations, public appearances, books, movie adaptation rights, even autographed copies). See? It's not about completely giving everything away and hoping people pay. It's about giving away the infinitely copyable goods in order to promote the scarce ones.
This has been repeated here many, many times here, yet you seem to keep misunderstanding and saying that Techdirt and the Techdirt community just want everything for free. That is not what's being argued at all.
Also, you really should learn to use the subject field in your posts.
After sending a challenge to ebay on the takedown notice and getting the item re-listed, doesn't some burden of proof then fall on Clocky people before they can reissue a take down for the same item?
That is exactly where the problem lies. While the burden of proof should be placed on Nanda to prove that there is some actual infringement, eBay's policy is that the burden of proof is on the person who posted the item to prove that they are not infringing. They then compound the bad policy by allowing the same listing to then be challenged again by the trademark holder, putting the burden of proof again on the person who posted the listing.
Just in the United States a good 30% have connections to the internet, out of those maybe 25% have the knowledge to know what is actually going on and if even 1% of those users would do something, voice their opinion, call their congressman, 1,000,000 voices could be heard.
By that math the U.S. has 1.3 billion people. I had no idea that we more than quadrupled our population overnight.
And -- as should be obvious to everyone here -- nobody out there can yet replicate its performance with an electronic system.
Well that might be obvious, if it were actually true. But it is not even remotely close to reality. First off, you use as a primary premise the idea that paper ballots cannot be forged, which both recent and long term history has shown us to not be the case. A couple good examples are the 2009 Elections in Iran, and the 2009 Afghanistan election. Both of these elections were done with traditional paper ballots, and both were shown to have major inconsistencies at best, and outright fraud at worst.
No one is saying that the current electronic voting systems are perfect, but a large part of the reason for that is the fact that the details of how the electronic systems work are locked up as "trade secrets" thereby denying the ability of people to examine those details to determine how reliable they really are.
You also seem to say that speed is the main difference between electronic and paper voting systems. That is also simply untrue. While speed is one of the advantages, it is hardly the biggest. The biggest advantage of a good electronic voting system is that it allows much more detailed auditing of results, which would be difficult if not impossible to achieve with a paper ballot system.
To come back to your first point regarding a hypothetical person with $500 million to spend to rig an election: I'm sure that if that amount is adequate to steal an electronic ballot election, then it would also be an adequate budget to steal a paper ballot election as well.
Re: (You still havent learned to use the subject field?)
This whole blog is constantly implying that quantity equals quality.
You have done this so many times I have lost count. You simply make something up, then say that Techdirt is always implying or encouraging it. Either your reading comprehension is non-existent, or you don't bother to actually read anything.
On the post: Nanda's Alarm Clock Not Only Runs Away From You, It Runs Away From eBay Too
Re: Re: Re: intersting math
"Just in the United States a good 30% have connections to the internet, out of those maybe 25% have the knowledge to know what is actually going on and if even 1% of those users would do something, voice their opinion, call their congressman, 1,000,000 voices could be heard."
So that's 1,000,000/1%/25%/30%= 1,333,333,333. My math was spot on.
On the post: On The Media Takes On The Music Industry
Speaking of Chris Anderson's "Free"
Ok, lets just look at that statement for a second. Less than a tenth of 250,000? Well "less than a tenth" is ambiguous, and I cannot find actual sales figures, so I'll go on the side of caution and say 5%. 5% of 250,000 is 12,500 copies of the book sold. Now according to Publisher's Weekly:
“Here’s the reality of the book industry: in 2004, 950,000 titles out of the 1.2 million tracked by Nielsen Bookscan sold fewer than 99 copies. Another 200,000 sold fewer than 1,000 copies. Only 25,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. The average book in America sells about 500 copies” (Publishers Weekly, July 17, 2006).
So, if 12,500 copies of "Free" sold, then that puts "Free" in the top 2% of books sold. Do you really think his publisher is disappointed with that? Do you really think that if he hadn't been giving it away in the way he did that he would have sold even more?
Based on the above info nearly 80% of books don't even sell 99 copies. It looks as though obscurity is actually the largest cause of "lost sales".
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals
A good example of why windows don't work
Now, if the option were available I would pay for a digital download, or rent or buy the DVD while the movie is still fresh. But since that is not currently an option I often don't watch the movie at all, because by the time it comes out on home formats I have lost interest in it.
To me this is a very good example of a "lost sale". This is not a lost sale due to piracy of any sort, but a lost sale due to the structure of the release windows.
On the post: Nokia Getting Killed In The Smartphone Market... So Of Course It Sues For Patent Infringement
So then, what took them so long?
Did they really sit around for two years before realizing "hey, the iPhone uses our technology" or maybe they decided to wait to see if the iPhone was popular before filing suit, that way they could claim that x% of iPhone sales were due to their proprietary technology that Apple "stole".
On the post: Nokia Getting Killed In The Smartphone Market... So Of Course It Sues For Patent Infringement
I wonder if he'll notice
Heh heh. I recognize where this one came from: everyone's favorite AC! I wonder if he has any response, or if he'll just pretend that he never said it.
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The old "It only works for small and big artists, but not the ones in between" Argument. It's really such a flimsy argument I am quite surprised you would try to use it again.
An artist will write only so many songs in their life, they will record only so many albums. Those are things that are rare, revered. Trent Reznors ability to parrot his own songs in public is nice, but really, it's the creation of those new songs that is rare and unique. He released probably less than 20 songs this year, but did 100+ concerts. Which one is more rare? Which one is enjoyed every day, and which one is just a memory for a couple of million people?
You forgot the last and most important part of those questions: Which one have fans have shown willingness to pay between $30 and $100 for(sometimes even more)? Which one is something that people have shown a reluctance to pay even 99 cents each for? Which one is actually scarce vs infinitely copyable for nearly 0 marginal cost?
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, your answer is wrong because it makes incorrect assumptions about the nature of paid goods and basic economics.
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Both of your premises are incorrect. Fabchannel's focus is not only on up and coming artists, and many up and coming artists will (naively) sign with any label that makes them an offer in order to hopefully increase their exposure.
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re: Re: Re:
You once again prove that you simply have not been paying attention. We give you example after example of ways in which the artists can make money. We give you example after example of artists that actually are making money while giving their music away. Yet you continue to make completely clueless statements such as this.
Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong point.
On the post: The Debate Is Not Free vs. Paid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is quite a slippery slope argument you make there. Let's just clarify the steps in that argument you made:
- Step 1: Digital, free copies= No paid digital copies and no hard copies.
Well, this is just foolishness. Tons of books are available digitally(paid and free) and also available in Hardcopy. Tor (Science fiction publisher) recently started releasing digital copies of many of their books for free. After downloading and reading about 10 of them I ended up purchasing about 5 of them in hard copy.
- Step 2: No hard copies = No Money
Once again, foolishness. There are many ways they can make money other than selling hard copies.
So your entire argument is based on these two steps. The first step is completely wrong, and even if is was right your second step is also completely wrong
I suppose you never learned that the slippery slope argument is always a weak argument to make.
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re: Re: Re:
Yes they do. The labels control public performance rights, so the venue has to sign a contract with the label in order host a performance act. The exception would be artists that are not signed to a label, or signed artists that have retained performance rights(currently very rare). In those cases the venue signs a contract with the artist instead of the label.
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re:
You once again completely miss the point (you are really good at doing that). No-one is saying that everything is advertising. What is being said is that the things that are infinitely copyable for zero marginal cost can be used to promote and increase the sales of the scarce goods (Concerts, public appearances, physical goods etc.).
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re:
Because the Artists and Venues are prohibited by their contracts with the labels from giving permission. Due to their contracts, only the labels have the right to give permission, and the labels are saying "no money, no content". So FabChannel cannot distribute content that they have permission to distribute because the labels are not giving them permission, even though the labels recognize the promotional and marketing value of it.
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re: (You still havent learned to use the subject field?)
Are you really saying that going to a concert and watching a video of a concert are equivalent? Have you ever been to a concert?
Is it your belief that musicians should only be in the business of selling T Shirts? Of course, without trademark regulations, they couldn't sell those either.
I know, it will be based on the good hearts of the fans that will just donate money to the musician because they like their music.
You have obviously not been paying attention. Have you not noticed the many examples that have been mentioned here showing the many ways artists can make money, aside from selling t-shirts or little plastic discs?
AC, You really have problems with reading comprehension. I'd say you were retarded, except I've met a number of developmentally disabled people who can grasp concepts much better than you seem to be able to.
Also, learn to use the subject field.
On the post: The Debate Is Not Free vs. Paid
Re: Re: Re: (AC still hasn't learned to use the subject field)
You visit here every day yet you apparently never understand what is being said. It's not about "give it away and pray" as you keep saying, and Mike has said numerous times that he doesn't like "give it away and pray". It's about using the infinitely copyable digital goods to promote and sell more scarce goods.
Your example of an author was perfectly illustrated in a number of recent articles here: Swedish author Unni Drougge posted free torrents of her Audio Book, and very quickly her Audio book jumped to the top of the paid audio book list. See that? She gave the Audio Book away for free, and sold more of the exact Audio book that she was giving away. link to techdirt article, Link to additional article
Another example is Peter Cooper, author of Begining Ruby. He advocates giving away his eBook in order to sell more copies of the physical book. Link to techdirt article, link to additional article
That's just two examples but there are lots of others, and authors make money in numerous ways (Consultations, public appearances, books, movie adaptation rights, even autographed copies). See? It's not about completely giving everything away and hoping people pay. It's about giving away the infinitely copyable goods in order to promote the scarce ones.
This has been repeated here many, many times here, yet you seem to keep misunderstanding and saying that Techdirt and the Techdirt community just want everything for free. That is not what's being argued at all.
Also, you really should learn to use the subject field in your posts.
On the post: Nanda's Alarm Clock Not Only Runs Away From You, It Runs Away From eBay Too
Re: wait a sec...
That is exactly where the problem lies. While the burden of proof should be placed on Nanda to prove that there is some actual infringement, eBay's policy is that the burden of proof is on the person who posted the item to prove that they are not infringing. They then compound the bad policy by allowing the same listing to then be challenged again by the trademark holder, putting the burden of proof again on the person who posted the listing.
On the post: Nanda's Alarm Clock Not Only Runs Away From You, It Runs Away From eBay Too
Re: intersting math
By that math the U.S. has 1.3 billion people. I had no idea that we more than quadrupled our population overnight.
On the post: Sequoia Accidentally Reveals (Potentially Illegal?) E-Voting Code
Re: Worth pointing out...
Well that might be obvious, if it were actually true. But it is not even remotely close to reality. First off, you use as a primary premise the idea that paper ballots cannot be forged, which both recent and long term history has shown us to not be the case. A couple good examples are the 2009 Elections in Iran, and the 2009 Afghanistan election. Both of these elections were done with traditional paper ballots, and both were shown to have major inconsistencies at best, and outright fraud at worst.
No one is saying that the current electronic voting systems are perfect, but a large part of the reason for that is the fact that the details of how the electronic systems work are locked up as "trade secrets" thereby denying the ability of people to examine those details to determine how reliable they really are.
You also seem to say that speed is the main difference between electronic and paper voting systems. That is also simply untrue. While speed is one of the advantages, it is hardly the biggest. The biggest advantage of a good electronic voting system is that it allows much more detailed auditing of results, which would be difficult if not impossible to achieve with a paper ballot system.
To come back to your first point regarding a hypothetical person with $500 million to spend to rig an election: I'm sure that if that amount is adequate to steal an electronic ballot election, then it would also be an adequate budget to steal a paper ballot election as well.
On the post: So Much For That 'Education' Campaign: Fewer And Fewer Swedes Think File Sharing Is 'Theft'
Re: (You still havent learned to use the subject field?)
You have done this so many times I have lost count. You simply make something up, then say that Techdirt is always implying or encouraging it. Either your reading comprehension is non-existent, or you don't bother to actually read anything.
On the post: Sequoia Accidentally Reveals (Potentially Illegal?) E-Voting Code
For more info....
http://www.codersrevolution.com/index.cfm/2009/10/21/Sequoia-Voting-System-Witch-Hunt-err-Study-Pr oject
Next >>