LOL Even though he did sign a deal with a label, I'm still hoping to hear the trolls chime in with the "moral" argument about artists and their right to be compensated.
So how does the moral argument for artists rights work when they are being screwed by their label?
I thought those were inalienable human rights, which can obviously be sold. Isn't that slavery? It sure does get convoluted.
Gaggle can use any words they like to justify the reasons for the hefty price tag. Publicity stunt or not, the reality is that the internet has shown us that increasingly fewer of us are willing to pay for music.
Does that mean that music has no value? Nope. Music is priceless, it is a part of us and we feel entitled to it. Artists aren't the only ones who feel a sense of entitlement. The internet just taught us that music is more like air. It's something that has a VERY high value, but an extremely low price, if any.
Newsflash for the RIAA. Instead of whining, you should learn to market music like water. Convince your customers that even though they can get it for free, you have a "better" version. It worked well for bottled water.
I know there is a general disdain for paywalls, but the fact is that if the numbers work for you, then a paywall is a good business model to use.
It's basically all about the math. Advertisers seem to understand this VERY well. If you get enough eyes on your product then some will buy. It works the same for paywalls. If you have 30 million people visiting your site every month, then you only need a tiny percentage to actually pony up some cash in order to make it work.
If you use the concept of elasticity in tandem with your paywall, then you can maximize your profit. A paywall set at $19.95 per year will turn off most people, but a paywall set at $.50 per month, is likely to "ensnare" a magnitude more customers.
This is all contingent on the size of your audience. If you don't have a sizeable audience to begin with, then you have to be offering something scare. The reason the NYT's paywall is working for them is that they have a ridiculously large audience and an established reputation.
This should highlight how broken the system really is.
Mega is/was definitely a haven for piracy, and yes that is clear to anyone who used the site.
But Mega was abiding by the law. The law grants protection for these services from the actions of their users and that's just how it is.
So all of the whining shills that wish to trumpet the law when it comes to piracy need to stand down and accept that services that can be used for piracy are PROTECTED by the LAW from the illegal actions of their users.
Otherwise gun manufacturers and telephone companies need to all be shut down immediately.
Actually it is that simplistic. I found the line "can't copy" to be humorous, but the reality is that as we do what is in our nature, sharing, then we actually preserve our culture.
Sure there are thousands of words rotting in film vaults, but thanks to many of us, there are many thousands of works that would be joining those rotting away but have been shared and can be accessed by everyone.
"... lesser works are literally disintegrating and disappearing because we can't make copies."
That just made me laugh. Can't implies some sort of barrier. I have been making copies of copyrighted works for decades. Vinyl to cassette, radio to cassette, cassette to CD, CD to CD, CD to mp3, and I could go on for a while.
So if we can't make copies, maybe we just need to learn to use the copying technologies.
Thank Bush and his War on Terror. Now Congress is soooo fucking scared of being seen as soft on terrorism that they will vote to revoke the 1st 4th and 5th Amendments in a hearbeat.
Their opponents should start running pro-patriot ads that attack Congressmen and women that erode our rights. Label it the Defense of the War on the Constitution.
"...while sitting Senators and Congressional Reps can find out, most do NOT have staff members with the necessary clearance to explain it to them. For this reason, most of the people voting on this bill have no idea how it is being used, and sometimes argue that it is not being used in ways that it is almost certainly being used (i.e., to scoop up data on many Americans without warrants)."
Ok so if Sen. Wyden knows this "secret interpretation" of FISA, and all the members of the House and Senate have clearance, then I don't understand why he can't just explain it to them in plain language.
In fact, it should be REQUIRED that all of those muppets sit down in a briefing about ANY law that impacts the bill of rights. How the hell can they vote to extend a law they don't comprehend????
There is no need for a data cap bill. There is a need to break up Comcast, ATT, Verizon, and TimeWarner Cable.
Way back when ATT was broken up, there was a ton of competition between the resulting RBOCs and CLECs. If Congress wants to be useful they should prohibit broadband providers from monopolizing a region, or limit their size, or anything else that promotes actual competition. The FCC needs to take a new look at its regulations and understand that MSOs (cable companies) and RBOCs (telcos) are actually the same now.
If you think data caps are bad, Comcast charges long distance rates on VoIP service. WTF??? Even the Telcos know that LD died.
There is no need for a data cap bill. There is a need to break up Comcast, ATT, Verizon, and TimeWarner Cable.
Way back when ATT was broken up, there was a ton of competition between the resulting RBOCs and CLECs. If Congress wants to be useful they should prohibit broadband providers from monopolizing a region, or limit their size, or anything else that promotes actual competition. The FCC needs to take a new look at its regulations and understand that MSOs (cable companies) and RBOCs (telcos) are actually the same now.
If you think data caps are bad, Comcast charges long distance rates on VoIP service. WTF??? Even the Telcos know that LD died.
"Now some company wants to sue people for downloading a movie they could go rent for $1.50, and all of our privacy laws go out the window?"
This brings up an odd situation that happens quite frequently. If I have a Netflix or LoveFilm account and I "pirate" a copy of a film that is available on those services, am I infringing?
I've already paid for the service, so in theory, the content creators have been compensated. But one day I was too lazy to look through Netflix and just downloaded the movie. Why should I be targeted by a troll if I've already paid?
While we all enjoy a good debate on copyright reform, I'm sure you could email Mike and request his thoughts on the subject if you really want a detailed response. As if he doesn't chime in enough already.
The thing that caught my attention is the question of how to recoup the $100M up-front costs on a movie, ten cents at a time. WTF? Are you making a fuckin' movie and trying to finance it? Have you already made the movie and only have shitty marketing and distribution channels ? Why do you care so much about the up-front costs of movie making?
Just so you understand, the people who make movies only use that line about $100M movies so they can coerce lawmakers. The goal in Hollywood is to make as many Blair Witch Projects as possible. They want to spend as little as possible and gross as much as possible. No one in Hollywood is trying to think up how to spend $100M so they can gross $150M. They are trying to think of ways to spend $10,000 and gross $400M. So even if Mike did tell you a way to recoup $100M, ten cents at a time, the makers of movies would STILL be trying to make movies for as little as they could get away with for the maximum return.
Oh and btw, no one gives a shit if they hit the numbers $.10 at a time or $40 at a time.
On the post: Kid Cudi Goes After Universal Again, Wonders Why His Millions Of Video Views Aren't Translating Into Radio Airplay
Re: *shrugs*
So how does the moral argument for artists rights work when they are being screwed by their label?
I thought those were inalienable human rights, which can obviously be sold. Isn't that slavery? It sure does get convoluted.
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
you got the title wrong
"...saying lipdubs are illegal just feels wrong"
Or equally accurate would have been:
"Most people don't think lipdubs should be illegal, because that seems silly."
Stating that the record labels are suing an internet video service is like reporting that water is wet.
On the post: Confusing Value And Price, Choir Demands £3000 Per Download
Nice words
Does that mean that music has no value? Nope. Music is priceless, it is a part of us and we feel entitled to it. Artists aren't the only ones who feel a sense of entitlement. The internet just taught us that music is more like air. It's something that has a VERY high value, but an extremely low price, if any.
Newsflash for the RIAA. Instead of whining, you should learn to market music like water. Convince your customers that even though they can get it for free, you have a "better" version. It worked well for bottled water.
On the post: Odd Logic: If You Value Your Readers, You Should Make Them Pay
Math is good
It's basically all about the math. Advertisers seem to understand this VERY well. If you get enough eyes on your product then some will buy. It works the same for paywalls. If you have 30 million people visiting your site every month, then you only need a tiny percentage to actually pony up some cash in order to make it work.
If you use the concept of elasticity in tandem with your paywall, then you can maximize your profit. A paywall set at $19.95 per year will turn off most people, but a paywall set at $.50 per month, is likely to "ensnare" a magnitude more customers.
This is all contingent on the size of your audience. If you don't have a sizeable audience to begin with, then you have to be offering something scare. The reason the NYT's paywall is working for them is that they have a ridiculously large audience and an established reputation.
On the post: There's A Secret Reason Why The Government Has To Keep It Secret How Many Americans It's Spying On Without A Warrant
Re: If someone would find that piece of paper...
On the post: Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?
Dirty Randy's?
On the post: Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant
But it's the law
Mega is/was definitely a haven for piracy, and yes that is clear to anyone who used the site.
But Mega was abiding by the law. The law grants protection for these services from the actions of their users and that's just how it is.
So all of the whining shills that wish to trumpet the law when it comes to piracy need to stand down and accept that services that can be used for piracy are PROTECTED by the LAW from the illegal actions of their users.
Otherwise gun manufacturers and telephone companies need to all be shut down immediately.
On the post: So, What Didn't Enter The Public Domain This Week, That Should Have
Re: Re: Maybe we need some help...
Sure there are thousands of words rotting in film vaults, but thanks to many of us, there are many thousands of works that would be joining those rotting away but have been shared and can be accessed by everyone.
Share and Enjoy. (see how that works)
On the post: So, What Didn't Enter The Public Domain This Week, That Should Have
Maybe we need some help...
That just made me laugh. Can't implies some sort of barrier. I have been making copies of copyrighted works for decades. Vinyl to cassette, radio to cassette, cassette to CD, CD to CD, CD to mp3, and I could go on for a while.
So if we can't make copies, maybe we just need to learn to use the copying technologies.
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re: ummmmm
So I'm liable if someone STEALS the CD. Great.
On the post: ...And FISA Is Renewed, With All Its Problems Still Intact
This is Bush's fault
Their opponents should start running pro-patriot ads that attack Congressmen and women that erode our rights. Label it the Defense of the War on the Constitution.
On the post: LEAKED: White House's Bogus Talking Points On Why Senate Should Trample The 4th Amendment
Am I missing something????
Ok so if Sen. Wyden knows this "secret interpretation" of FISA, and all the members of the House and Senate have clearance, then I don't understand why he can't just explain it to them in plain language.
In fact, it should be REQUIRED that all of those muppets sit down in a briefing about ANY law that impacts the bill of rights. How the hell can they vote to extend a law they don't comprehend????
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps
Not well thought out
Way back when ATT was broken up, there was a ton of competition between the resulting RBOCs and CLECs. If Congress wants to be useful they should prohibit broadband providers from monopolizing a region, or limit their size, or anything else that promotes actual competition. The FCC needs to take a new look at its regulations and understand that MSOs (cable companies) and RBOCs (telcos) are actually the same now.
If you think data caps are bad, Comcast charges long distance rates on VoIP service. WTF??? Even the Telcos know that LD died.
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps
Not well thought out
Way back when ATT was broken up, there was a ton of competition between the resulting RBOCs and CLECs. If Congress wants to be useful they should prohibit broadband providers from monopolizing a region, or limit their size, or anything else that promotes actual competition. The FCC needs to take a new look at its regulations and understand that MSOs (cable companies) and RBOCs (telcos) are actually the same now.
If you think data caps are bad, Comcast charges long distance rates on VoIP service. WTF??? Even the Telcos know that LD died.
On the post: If TekSavvy Won't Oppose Copyright Trolls Who Want Customer Info, Who Will?
Infringing???
This brings up an odd situation that happens quite frequently. If I have a Netflix or LoveFilm account and I "pirate" a copy of a film that is available on those services, am I infringing?
I've already paid for the service, so in theory, the content creators have been compensated. But one day I was too lazy to look through Netflix and just downloaded the movie. Why should I be targeted by a troll if I've already paid?
On the post: EU Officially Pronounces ACTA Dead As Commission Withdraws Court Of Justice Assessment
Sorry
On the post: EU Officially Pronounces ACTA Dead As Commission Withdraws Court Of Justice Assessment
Please RIP
On the post: Instagram: 'Wait, Wait! That's Not What We Meant!'
Re: I'm going to imagine the worst here:
While we all enjoy a good debate on copyright reform, I'm sure you could email Mike and request his thoughts on the subject if you really want a detailed response. As if he doesn't chime in enough already.
The thing that caught my attention is the question of how to recoup the $100M up-front costs on a movie, ten cents at a time. WTF? Are you making a fuckin' movie and trying to finance it? Have you already made the movie and only have shitty marketing and distribution channels ? Why do you care so much about the up-front costs of movie making?
Just so you understand, the people who make movies only use that line about $100M movies so they can coerce lawmakers. The goal in Hollywood is to make as many Blair Witch Projects as possible. They want to spend as little as possible and gross as much as possible. No one in Hollywood is trying to think up how to spend $100M so they can gross $150M. They are trying to think of ways to spend $10,000 and gross $400M. So even if Mike did tell you a way to recoup $100M, ten cents at a time, the makers of movies would STILL be trying to make movies for as little as they could get away with for the maximum return.
Oh and btw, no one gives a shit if they hit the numbers $.10 at a time or $40 at a time.
On the post: Everyone's Up In Arms Over Instagram's Terms Of Service They Didn't Read In The First Place
Next gen
Generation EULA
On the post: WIPO Celebrates Chinese Patent Explosion, Pretends That It's Innovation
Where ????
Will someone please tell me where all this new shit is so I can run out and buy it?
I looked in Walmart and Costco, it's not there.
Next >>