Re: Re: Re: Sports depends on leveling the playing field
This whole article deals with the subject.
Can European soccer learn from NFL on team parity? | Analysis & Opinion |: "The salary cap which makes sure that cash doesn't talk too much and the draft, which gives the lowest ranked team the first pick of the best college talent, are the two most obvious means by which the NFL ensures that things stay interesting.
On the surface at least, it seems a remarkably socialist system for a profit-orientated American sports league to have in place. Money and talent is spread around equally to ensure that there is a healthy equality. ...
Indeed the draft system is almost a little welfare-state style form of assistance."
Re: Re: Sports depends on leveling the playing field
The playing field is supposed to be equal but the teams are all supposed to be striving to be unequal.
The league creates rules to try to make things more equal. For example there is the salary cap and also the worst team getting to pick first in the draft.
When a development threatens to give some teams an overwhelming advantage, then the league makes rules to modify it.
If you are OK with that, then how can you criticize Universal (for example) when they don't pay artists any royalties? Why forgive car commercials, when you won't forgive the RIAA?
And that is why many artists did sign major label deals and some continue to do so. They know they won't see any money from the recordings, but they feel the promotional opportunities are worth it.
Lady Gaga is a huge star because of her label. And since she has a 360 deal with it, the label doesn't really care if people buy the recorded music. As long as Lady Gaga generates money from any source the label gets a piece of it.
The literary world would would have died centuries ago if authors needed permission to elude to another authors work.
The amount of music available that creators having willingly made available for commercial and non-commercial use is expanding all the time, so I think there will be plenty to choose from. In fact, support the artists who want the exposure rather than those who won't give permission.
Most artists are so eager to have the exposure that they will give the TV show free use of the music. That's the kind of deal many bands/artists give to MTV. MTV doesn't even give you a heads up as to when a song might be used. You just give them blanket permission to use whatever songs you are willing to have them use, you provide the songs to them, and they are free to use them if and when they wish.
But TV and film companies do go through the process getting permission first, and I think that is reasonable.
In other words, the production companies ask, the artists give permission, and no money changes hands.
The reason copyright wouldn't work in football is that the league depends on the various teams to be as equal to each other as possible. If one team came up with a winning strategy and other teams were prevented from copying it, then there wouldn't be a contest, which would also end gambling (a significant force in sports). Sports require that there be the possibility of multiple winners; when it is a given that only one team or player will win, then there is no element of surprise, which decreases fan interest and creates very lopsided betting odds.
I go to my job, get paid for doing my job, and don't expect to be paid whenever anyone makes use of anything of value I did at my job until I'm dead.
What kind of job do you do?
An engineer, for example, may help to design a product. He may get paid once for that effort, but the company benefits from that design over and over again by selling multiple copies of the product.
I know that when I did market research for hire, I was paid for my hourly time, but then the company sold multiple copies of the report, so they got paid each time they sold another copy.
Fox primary: complicated, contractual - Jonathan Martin and Keach Hagey - POLITICO.com: "With Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee all making moves indicating they may run for president, their common employer is facing a question that hasn't been asked before: How does a news organization cover White House hopefuls when so many are on the payroll?"
The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations | The Big Picture: "The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two "interest groups" - I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase - have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights."
3. Don't worry about the new, focus on the next.
Fail and fail fast. At Quirky, every product we develop, whether it’s a runaway success or a huge flop, teaches us valuable lessons that we can apply to future iterations of that product or other products. Whether it’s a failure, success, or something in-between, there's always something to learn from each iteration. We’re never “done,” which allows us to stay on our toes and figure out what's the next step for that initiative, instead of worrying about what was just delivered.
I download some songs before I have even listened to them because they are being offered for free. Whenever I need to free up more space I listen to the songs and delete many of them because I know I will never listen to them again. I don't think anyone is saying don't make songs or don't download them because most aren't going to be keepers.
So we might start saying "apps are like music." There are more of them than anyone can consume, but keep them coming.
I have felt that the rapid turnover of mobile apps, and the fact that developers keep turning them out without a lot of investment of time or money, is a good thing. It's a steady stream of ideas, some more useful than others, some more popular than others. I think the creativity is quite impressive even if most of the apps have a short life span.
One of the things to keep an eye on are income figures put out by the music collection agencies. They want to show that their income is going up (to justify their value to their members), but on the other hand, they collect royalties at venues, live concerts, and radio/streaming which some feel is unfair. So if you don't like ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and the music collection agencies in other countries, you're not going to be happy with their contribution to music industry income. I haven't looked to see what it does to the research, but if it is "bad" income, you don't want to include it in the rosy projections.
How many of you are saving/documenting everything you've created?
I'll bet none of you is saving every photo you've taken, every video you've shot, everything you have ever written.
Now let's say there are companies that aren't bothering to save what they have created.
And let's say consumers aren't bothering to save whatever copies they might have made of those products, particularly if the copies are starting to rot.
So over the course of 100 years, you discover that something that was available at one point has not been saved by anyone. That's what has happened with certain cultural artifacts. Buildings haven't been saved. Products haven't been saved. Meeting notes haven't been saved. Films and videos haven't been saved.
There are products that were mass produced that have more or less disappeared because no one bothered to save them. Maybe we have pictures of them, if we are lucky, but think of all the stuff produced in the 19th and 20th centuries that are gone, not because people were prevented from making copies, but because no one thought the copies were worth saving. They took up space. They required maintenance. They wore out. They fell out of favor or became a political liability so people destroyed them.
If you father had let his personal papers's content be known to the public and allowed people to copy them, as he was accruing them, then you wouldn't have to worry about archiving it after his death. Copies of his papers would have already been out there.
His stuff was on display in his basement. He proudly showed it off to visitors. But as far as I know, no one volunteered to come in to physically copy everything he owned. We had old newspapers articles, old photos, old pamphlets, etc. There may be copies spread out in various people's personal collections, but we had a collection already accumulated which none of us knew what to do with. I have no space in my condo. My daughters went through everything and kept what they wanted. Everything else was trashed. Sadly. I would have loved to have found a home for it all, but didn't have one available.
Is there a group of people volunteering to copy old photos, papers, and movies of everyone who has them? If so, yes, I think we can make a permanent record of every artifact in this culture. But right now, we have more decaying items that need copying than we have the manpower to do it.
All I am saying is that there is stuff being trashed that might someday have historical value but isn't being saved. And not because of copyright issues.
And the reason I say this is that if you want to archive everything, there are more problems than just copyright. Even if there aren't copyright issues, lots of stuff isn't going to be saved. You need to deal with that issue, too.
People who might one day become famous have trashed early writings/art/etc. because no one knows they might be worth something someday. Painters who are short on canvas paint over their paintings, so those get lost.
I have a painting that I saved from my father's house which turns out is worth about $15,000 because I looked up the artist's signature. But the paint is starting to chip off. I'm not sure what to do about that. I know there are art restorers, but how do I get the painting to one of them without further damage?
We don't know how the money is being distributed per artist. Other studies have shown that the major artists have benefited more than those at the bottom.
This came out today which shows what has happened in Australia.
Mixed Results For Live Biz Down Under: "Australia's live entertainment circuit made more money in 2009, but sold fewer tickets. And the cost of going to concerts continues to rise."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preservation is costly
No, I'm not missing the point. There were also tons of home movies and cheap nickelodeon movies being made when the technology was introduced. Copies of those weren't made and saved either. It wasn't as if big studios locked up those movies. Most of the movies being made were treated as disposables.
How many copies does anyone make of their own stuff? Before there were photocopy machines, how many people made duplicates of what they wrote and saved those? Most people haven't saved their own personal history, so much of it has been lost, too.
When my father died, he had a lot of personal papers that might have been of interest to naval historians. But we didn't have the time or wherewithal to get them to an archivist. So they were destroyed. I know someone somewhere might have wanted them, but we didn't have the time to save them or a place to store them.
No, without copyright issues, there would likely be many more copies of films in much better conditions out there in the wild, making the elaborate effort to restore and preserve that single copy we have left a moot point.
But that's what I am trying to say. The old copies were unstable. Even if there had been 1000s of copies, they weren't being kept, or they weren't being kept well. These were fragile items and also more useful when they were recycled, so the idea that they should have been saved for generations wasn't the norm.
It's a bit like saying that if there weren't copyright issues, we'd have multiple copies of your home photos. People just didn't save them.
It was more of a technology issue than a copyright issue why the films weren't preserved. Same with old TV shows. The producers saw them as live shows with no replay value. There are exceptions, like the Lucy shows, but most early TV shows are gone.
Yes. They aren't trying to save the original. The cost is in preserving the original enough to make a copy from it.
Many of the old films were either recycled or allowed to deteriorate because no one saw the value in saving them. So now, in order to make copies, someone has to pay for the effort.
There are groups saving old films, but they have to raise the money to do so.
Multiple copies were made of the original films, but in many cases they have all been lost. Now there may be one copy left and if it is falling apart, it's an expensive proposition to save it enough to make more copies.
I'm just pointing out that even without any copyright issues, you're still stuck with the same technological problems that there appears to be limited funds to deal with.
The cost of preservation, rather than copyright issues, is likely the bigger problem.
National Film Preservation Foundation: Why Preserve Film?: "The laboratory work necessary to save a film is expensive. In 2010, making a new master and viewing print of a seven-reel black-and-white silent feature costs about $18,115, assuming that no special restoration work is required. Making a supervised digital video for public viewing adds another $3,000 to the total. Preserving a sound feature costs even more."
On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays
Re: Re: Re: Sports depends on leveling the playing field
Can European soccer learn from NFL on team parity? | Analysis & Opinion |: "The salary cap which makes sure that cash doesn't talk too much and the draft, which gives the lowest ranked team the first pick of the best college talent, are the two most obvious means by which the NFL ensures that things stay interesting.
On the surface at least, it seems a remarkably socialist system for a profit-orientated American sports league to have in place. Money and talent is spread around equally to ensure that there is a healthy equality. ...
Indeed the draft system is almost a little welfare-state style form of assistance."
On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays
Re: Re: Sports depends on leveling the playing field
The league creates rules to try to make things more equal. For example there is the salary cap and also the worst team getting to pick first in the draft.
When a development threatens to give some teams an overwhelming advantage, then the league makes rules to modify it.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Commercial vs. non-commercial
And that is why many artists did sign major label deals and some continue to do so. They know they won't see any money from the recordings, but they feel the promotional opportunities are worth it.
Lady Gaga is a huge star because of her label. And since she has a 360 deal with it, the label doesn't really care if people buy the recorded music. As long as Lady Gaga generates money from any source the label gets a piece of it.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re:
The amount of music available that creators having willingly made available for commercial and non-commercial use is expanding all the time, so I think there will be plenty to choose from. In fact, support the artists who want the exposure rather than those who won't give permission.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Just ask
But TV and film companies do go through the process getting permission first, and I think that is reasonable.
In other words, the production companies ask, the artists give permission, and no money changes hands.
On the post: Social Mores At Work: Sigur Ros Calls Out Commercials With 'Similar' Music
If there is no copyright
On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays
Sports depends on leveling the playing field
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Comes Out Against COICA Censorship Bill; Shouldn't You?
Re: Re:
What kind of job do you do?
An engineer, for example, may help to design a product. He may get paid once for that effort, but the company benefits from that design over and over again by selling multiple copies of the product.
I know that when I did market research for hire, I was paid for my hourly time, but then the company sold multiple copies of the report, so they got paid each time they sold another copy.
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Comes Out Against COICA Censorship Bill; Shouldn't You?
Some over political stuff to mull over
The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations | The Big Picture: "The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two "interest groups" - I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase - have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights."
On the post: Early Warning Signs: App Usage On Mobile Phones Still Not That Impressive
Re: Rapid Iteration
3. Don't worry about the new, focus on the next.
Fail and fail fast. At Quirky, every product we develop, whether it’s a runaway success or a huge flop, teaches us valuable lessons that we can apply to future iterations of that product or other products. Whether it’s a failure, success, or something in-between, there's always something to learn from each iteration. We’re never “done,” which allows us to stay on our toes and figure out what's the next step for that initiative, instead of worrying about what was just delivered.
On the post: Early Warning Signs: App Usage On Mobile Phones Still Not That Impressive
A lot like songs
So we might start saying "apps are like music." There are more of them than anyone can consume, but keep them coming.
On the post: Early Warning Signs: App Usage On Mobile Phones Still Not That Impressive
Rapid Iteration
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Musicians Making More Money
Collection agencies
Just a thought.
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
How many of you are saving/documenting everything you've created?
Now let's say there are companies that aren't bothering to save what they have created.
And let's say consumers aren't bothering to save whatever copies they might have made of those products, particularly if the copies are starting to rot.
So over the course of 100 years, you discover that something that was available at one point has not been saved by anyone. That's what has happened with certain cultural artifacts. Buildings haven't been saved. Products haven't been saved. Meeting notes haven't been saved. Films and videos haven't been saved.
There are products that were mass produced that have more or less disappeared because no one bothered to save them. Maybe we have pictures of them, if we are lucky, but think of all the stuff produced in the 19th and 20th centuries that are gone, not because people were prevented from making copies, but because no one thought the copies were worth saving. They took up space. They required maintenance. They wore out. They fell out of favor or became a political liability so people destroyed them.
Saving history is a complex issue.
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preservation is costly
His stuff was on display in his basement. He proudly showed it off to visitors. But as far as I know, no one volunteered to come in to physically copy everything he owned. We had old newspapers articles, old photos, old pamphlets, etc. There may be copies spread out in various people's personal collections, but we had a collection already accumulated which none of us knew what to do with. I have no space in my condo. My daughters went through everything and kept what they wanted. Everything else was trashed. Sadly. I would have loved to have found a home for it all, but didn't have one available.
Is there a group of people volunteering to copy old photos, papers, and movies of everyone who has them? If so, yes, I think we can make a permanent record of every artifact in this culture. But right now, we have more decaying items that need copying than we have the manpower to do it.
All I am saying is that there is stuff being trashed that might someday have historical value but isn't being saved. And not because of copyright issues.
And the reason I say this is that if you want to archive everything, there are more problems than just copyright. Even if there aren't copyright issues, lots of stuff isn't going to be saved. You need to deal with that issue, too.
People who might one day become famous have trashed early writings/art/etc. because no one knows they might be worth something someday. Painters who are short on canvas paint over their paintings, so those get lost.
I have a painting that I saved from my father's house which turns out is worth about $15,000 because I looked up the artist's signature. But the paint is starting to chip off. I'm not sure what to do about that. I know there are art restorers, but how do I get the painting to one of them without further damage?
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Musicians Making More Money
It would help to have more info than averages
This came out today which shows what has happened in Australia.
Mixed Results For Live Biz Down Under: "Australia's live entertainment circuit made more money in 2009, but sold fewer tickets. And the cost of going to concerts continues to rise."
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preservation is costly
How many copies does anyone make of their own stuff? Before there were photocopy machines, how many people made duplicates of what they wrote and saved those? Most people haven't saved their own personal history, so much of it has been lost, too.
When my father died, he had a lot of personal papers that might have been of interest to naval historians. But we didn't have the time or wherewithal to get them to an archivist. So they were destroyed. I know someone somewhere might have wanted them, but we didn't have the time to save them or a place to store them.
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preservation is costly
But that's what I am trying to say. The old copies were unstable. Even if there had been 1000s of copies, they weren't being kept, or they weren't being kept well. These were fragile items and also more useful when they were recycled, so the idea that they should have been saved for generations wasn't the norm.
It's a bit like saying that if there weren't copyright issues, we'd have multiple copies of your home photos. People just didn't save them.
It was more of a technology issue than a copyright issue why the films weren't preserved. Same with old TV shows. The producers saw them as live shows with no replay value. There are exceptions, like the Lucy shows, but most early TV shows are gone.
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Re: Re: Re: Preservation is costly
Many of the old films were either recycled or allowed to deteriorate because no one saw the value in saving them. So now, in order to make copies, someone has to pay for the effort.
There are groups saving old films, but they have to raise the money to do so.
Multiple copies were made of the original films, but in many cases they have all been lost. Now there may be one copy left and if it is falling apart, it's an expensive proposition to save it enough to make more copies.
I'm just pointing out that even without any copyright issues, you're still stuck with the same technological problems that there appears to be limited funds to deal with.
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Preservation is costly
National Film Preservation Foundation: Why Preserve Film?: "The laboratory work necessary to save a film is expensive. In 2010, making a new master and viewing print of a seven-reel black-and-white silent feature costs about $18,115, assuming that no special restoration work is required. Making a supervised digital video for public viewing adds another $3,000 to the total. Preserving a sound feature costs even more."
Next >>