The really sad thing is that some people believe their crap. The writers don't believe it, but some of their readers are dumb enough to.
I appreciate the debunking, but unfortunately some people will believe what they want even when given facts.
As for some of the conservative commentators not believing what they say, yes, I'm sure of that. Sometimes, when you compare their private lives to their public lives, there's quite a bit of disconnect.
If you focus too much on major labels, I think you'll miss the more important trends in gaming.
DICE Video Game Conference Considers Gaming’s Future - NYTimes.com: "After years of consistent growth, retail sales of core console games, which often cost around $60, are at best flat these days. Though an improving economy could change that, the major growth in the game business is on social networks and cellphones."
Maybe as people debate how to deal with taxes, they'll also deal with how to pay for services that they want. There's too much of a disconnect between what people want in services and how much they are willing to pay. It's happening at all levels. Do you want public support of roads or do you want to make all roads toll roads and have private companies own and run them? Do you want to have public education or only have private schools? Do you want the city to pay for snow removal, or should you make people fend for themselves during storms?
There are far more exciting things happening in music than worrying about whether or not major labels are going to make music available to video games. There's really no need to tie your business to content where the rights are hard to obtain.
Actually, if I understand the story, she made the entire movie and THEN approached the rights holders.
This is definitely not the way to do it because the lawyers know they have you. But if you approach rights holders first and say you don't have any money to pay them upfront but could perhaps work out a deal where they get something if you make something, often they will agree. I've dealt with filmmakers that way.
And MTV, for example, has a standard contract where they ask for permission to use your music but they don't offer to pay anything. Many rights holders agree because they want the exposure.
So get permission first if you are making a movie.
When times were tough, the owners of the site are the ones that ponied up to keep things going. They took all the real risks, here.
I don't think this particular argument is going to work well in this forum. The record labels have been saying for years that they deserve most of the money that comes from selling music because they take the financial risks.
What do you think would sell better: Guitar God Beatles Edition or Guitar God Some Guys You Don't Know Edition?
If you are saying that the music game has little or no value unless it is associated with famous musicians, then it's reasonable for the famous musicians to feel they should be paid a sponsorship fee for lending their names to the product.
Activision Blizzard to Close Guitar Hero Unit - NYTimes.com: "'In retrospect, it was a $3 billion or more business that everybody needed to buy, so they did, but they only needed to buy it once,' said Michael Pachter, a Wedbush Morgan analyst. 'It’s much like Wii Fit. Once you have it, you don’t need to buy another one.'"
In fact, I'll add that if unlicensed music is the way to go with these music games, then in addition to having lots of rights holders offering their music for free to be used in the games, the games companies could have commissioned music for the games and owned that music outright. Why it is necessary to deal with the labels in the first place? Really, I sincerely doubt that licensing fees did in this industry. The marketplace has a short attention span. It's more fun for many users to use mobile apps and then move on to something else when they get bored.
Complaining about the major labels is last year's news. There are far more creative ways to make music these days than Guitar Hero and Rockband.
There's a ton of music that the rights holders would have given to the games for free. So if there has been a market for the games, the game companies could have found a solution. The industry as a whole is moving toward easy-to-create, low-cost games for mobile devices.
Then the hookers moved into MySpace. An endless stream of women wanting to be friends on MySpace. The noise level got so high that many people moved on.
I've started seeing the pattern on Facebook. One of the techniques is for someone to tag one of your friends on Facebook. That puts their "Come see my photos" message into your news stream even though you're not friends with the hookers yourself. I've been marking those as spam as I see them, but the fact that they are even turning up at all suggests the same patten that screwed email and MySpace will happen with Facebook, too. Once it becomes too trashy, the "cool" kids will move on to something else and eventually everyone else will follow.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
I really wouldn't want to depend of some hippies recapitulating the developement of the drug industry to get me my existing meds, let alone invent the ones I hope will let me live a few more years in comfort.
Making one's own meds probably isn't worth the trouble anyway. Generic versions are cheap enough.
Basically almost everyone would have to wait until they need to go to the ER, because they couldn't afford anything out of pocket. Emergency medicine is among the most expensive, if not the most. That is the exact opposite of how to control health care costs, as well as provide the best care.
I specifically bought a policy that covers some basic preventative medical coverage at no expense to me so I would go in and get it done. I knew that if I had to pay for everything until my deductible was met, I would avoid going to the doctor if I thought I could put it off.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
Yeah, and for the most part, we can reduce the number of the people using the most medical care just by saying the words "loose some fucking weight or be last in line next time"
What's funny about this is that I live in a place where we live it. Boulder is very fit, very lean, very health conscious. And a lot of people explore alternative medicine as a way to have more control over their health care and to avoid "big business heath care."
So when Boulderites suggest that this might be a good way to live, the Tea Party people freak out and don't want to hear that unhealthy foods and too much car driving and not enough walking/cycling might be bad for them and it will end up increasing health care costs. There have even been Tea Party people who think encouraging more bicycle riding is a plot to take away their rights.
Here are some other health care scenarios that we can ponder:
1. A guy on a motorcycle. Maybe he didn't wear a helmet, and he got in an accident and he's been severely injured. He put himself at risk by being on the motorcycle, and more at risk by not wearing a helmet. Should we make him responsible for his health care, and if he doesn't have the funds, not treat him?
2. If people smoke cigarettes and then get lung cancer, should we let them go without treatment if they can't pay? Or should we put a health tax on cigarettes that goes directly into a lung cancer fund to pay for smokers who get cancer?
3. If a child is born with a disability, who is responsible for that care? What if the family can't or won't pay? Adoption or institutionalization have been options in the past. Are the institutions supported by the state or charity?
Nobody wants to hear it, but the easiest way to reduce health costs is to quit socializing them, and put the actual costs of the treatment on to the individual receiving the treatment.
I believe having people understand the costs is part of the solution. People should be smarter health care shoppers. However, there are issues in limiting health care that have people on all sides of the political spectrum freaking out.
For example, some people don't believe in socialized health care, and yet want people in a vegetative state kept alive for years. Who pays for that? Families? And what if the families say, "Hey, we don't have the money to pay for this and we don't have the time to provide 24-hour round the clock care"?
Or what about situations where a person needs a transplant and can't pay? Are we going to be honest and say transplants only go to the rich because they are the only ones who can pay for it themselves?
That's why I brought up the whole health care issue in this topic. It's a complex one and hits at a lot of our societial values. We might be able to get online and block laws we don't like, but that doesn't get things done. So how do we care for those people who are sick but have no financial resources?
We've already got politicians who know how to block laws. What we still need are politicians who know how to get things done. Or we need to replace our governmental system with one that can make collective decisions. But, of course, we know that the collective will can be manipulated, so a pure democracy may not create a society everyone likes.
On the post: How To Debunk A Fact-Free Fox News Fearmongering Piece About New Video Game
Re: It's Fox News
I appreciate the debunking, but unfortunately some people will believe what they want even when given facts.
As for some of the conservative commentators not believing what they say, yes, I'm sure of that. Sometimes, when you compare their private lives to their public lives, there's quite a bit of disconnect.
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Missing the forest for the trees
DICE Video Game Conference Considers Gaming’s Future - NYTimes.com: "After years of consistent growth, retail sales of core console games, which often cost around $60, are at best flat these days. Though an improving economy could change that, the major growth in the game business is on social networks and cellphones."
On the post: Amazon Announces It's Leaving Texas In Tax Dispute; Governor Blames Comptroller, Says He'll Fix
I welcome tax discussions
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
This is where it is all headed
Music Hack Day NYC: ‘Strings’ Draws a Playable Harp in Thin Air | Evolver.fm
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: S.O.P.
This is definitely not the way to do it because the lawyers know they have you. But if you approach rights holders first and say you don't have any money to pay them upfront but could perhaps work out a deal where they get something if you make something, often they will agree. I've dealt with filmmakers that way.
And MTV, for example, has a standard contract where they ask for permission to use your music but they don't offer to pay anything. Many rights holders agree because they want the exposure.
So get permission first if you are making a movie.
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think this particular argument is going to work well in this forum. The record labels have been saying for years that they deserve most of the money that comes from selling music because they take the financial risks.
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are saying that the music game has little or no value unless it is associated with famous musicians, then it's reasonable for the famous musicians to feel they should be paid a sponsorship fee for lending their names to the product.
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Here's a good explanation of the market
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Streisand effect
I've been making a point of clicking on each of his comments to see what offends you guys.
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Complaining about the major labels is last year's news. There are far more creative ways to make music these days than Guitar Hero and Rockband.
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
The beginning of the end of Facebook
Then the hookers moved into MySpace. An endless stream of women wanting to be friends on MySpace. The noise level got so high that many people moved on.
I've started seeing the pattern on Facebook. One of the techniques is for someone to tag one of your friends on Facebook. That puts their "Come see my photos" message into your news stream even though you're not friends with the hookers yourself. I've been marking those as spam as I see them, but the fact that they are even turning up at all suggests the same patten that screwed email and MySpace will happen with Facebook, too. Once it becomes too trashy, the "cool" kids will move on to something else and eventually everyone else will follow.
On the post: Why You Should Be Paying Attention To Kevin Smith
To add to the discussion
On the post: Building An Audience Takes Time, But In The Long Run It Can Provide You More Time To Do What You Love
To add to the Kevin Smith discussion
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
Making one's own meds probably isn't worth the trouble anyway. Generic versions are cheap enough.
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns - The Denver Post
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re:
I specifically bought a policy that covers some basic preventative medical coverage at no expense to me so I would go in and get it done. I knew that if I had to pay for everything until my deductible was met, I would avoid going to the doctor if I thought I could put it off.
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you reduce the cost of health care?
What's funny about this is that I live in a place where we live it. Boulder is very fit, very lean, very health conscious. And a lot of people explore alternative medicine as a way to have more control over their health care and to avoid "big business heath care."
So when Boulderites suggest that this might be a good way to live, the Tea Party people freak out and don't want to hear that unhealthy foods and too much car driving and not enough walking/cycling might be bad for them and it will end up increasing health care costs. There have even been Tea Party people who think encouraging more bicycle riding is a plot to take away their rights.
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re: Re:
1. A guy on a motorcycle. Maybe he didn't wear a helmet, and he got in an accident and he's been severely injured. He put himself at risk by being on the motorcycle, and more at risk by not wearing a helmet. Should we make him responsible for his health care, and if he doesn't have the funds, not treat him?
2. If people smoke cigarettes and then get lung cancer, should we let them go without treatment if they can't pay? Or should we put a health tax on cigarettes that goes directly into a lung cancer fund to pay for smokers who get cancer?
3. If a child is born with a disability, who is responsible for that care? What if the family can't or won't pay? Adoption or institutionalization have been options in the past. Are the institutions supported by the state or charity?
On the post: The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control
Re:
I believe having people understand the costs is part of the solution. People should be smarter health care shoppers. However, there are issues in limiting health care that have people on all sides of the political spectrum freaking out.
For example, some people don't believe in socialized health care, and yet want people in a vegetative state kept alive for years. Who pays for that? Families? And what if the families say, "Hey, we don't have the money to pay for this and we don't have the time to provide 24-hour round the clock care"?
Or what about situations where a person needs a transplant and can't pay? Are we going to be honest and say transplants only go to the rich because they are the only ones who can pay for it themselves?
That's why I brought up the whole health care issue in this topic. It's a complex one and hits at a lot of our societial values. We might be able to get online and block laws we don't like, but that doesn't get things done. So how do we care for those people who are sick but have no financial resources?
We've already got politicians who know how to block laws. What we still need are politicians who know how to get things done. Or we need to replace our governmental system with one that can make collective decisions. But, of course, we know that the collective will can be manipulated, so a pure democracy may not create a society everyone likes.
Next >>