People aren't only searching for "CNN" or "Dell", they're searching for "current news analysis on this thing I care about" or "cheap netbook that does what I need". It hurts Dell and CNN a heck of a lot more than it hurts Google. Every single competitor of any company taking that risk of jumping ship is going to reap huge rewards that's not easily offset by a million or millions of dollars. The numbers are never going to add up, it's cheaper to pay Google to shut itself down.
Microsoft is actually taking the only realistic strategy, build a better value. They're not succeeding wonderfully, but clearly with both Windows 7 and Bing, they're trying to offer better value to consumers.
Even so, it would make the article less like an article and more like a discussion if they were to bring either that full forum or a different system into the foreground. It's not nearly as bad as not having comments, but it's still limiting.
That's pretty disingenuous. Copyright isn't just a tool that an individual can pick up and throw at another individual. It's a law that's in place that various entities are obligated to enforce and deal with (courts, etc). It can and is misused legally. A gun is a tool, if I get caught shooting someone in the foot I go to jail. The problem with copyright is that it has the force of law behind it.
It sounds like he's limiting his view of working musicians to the composers / producers / film scorers such as himself. And you're right anonymous coward, there's a lot more musicians out there besides those folks that do actually play music. But the composer/scorer types do exist right now, and a lot of them do make money as he is describing. If I were him, I'd be a bit nervous too. But I'd also start looking for my long term options.
I'd agree that there is a lack of real world experience in Mike's opinions, when it comes to composers, song writers, film scorers etc in particular. I'd also agree that there's a lot more "omg the lawyerz iz bad" than "here's a business plan to make money" on here. But, there is some of the latter.
Most musicians I know don't want to be small businessmen, sell t-shirts, tour, and musicians like me, composers, song writers, film scorers, well, we're just guys with kids, backyards, college tuition. Music is our day job.
I think I agree with you on that point also, but it's also true that most eletricians I know don't want to run their entire business either. Some of them do, and they do. Some of they don't, and they work for large or small businesses that handle the "selling t shirts" aspects. Internet and technology has changed what opportunities there are for promoting and selling music. The industry, by which I mean existing and upcoming large and small businesses have yet to catch up, but the opportunities are there for either the entrepreneurial musician, or for the entrepreneurial businessman to help the musician.
All in all, I wouldn't take anything Mike says here too seriously as it's not his words that are changing the industry. But if I were you, I would worry about the inevitable changes that technology is driving. A lot of the aspects of the old model just aren't the best or most realistic ways to make money any more, and change will happen. Maybe look for some hope in the few articles that do talk about the positive aspects of change, and be ready for it.
Agreed. Only nitpick I'd make is Ars hiding the comments at the bottom behind a click. Seems like a really poor attitude towards those "unscrupulous comments those dern people keep asking for on our articles". But other than that, good, the intro to the article does seem adequate to indicate the nature of the post.
... and if people downloaded it they probably wont have gone to see it, thats the way it works with movies that really suck ...
Maybe that's part of what they're really afraid of with this whole internet and piracy thing. The negative word of mouth and stigma happens with bad movies more-so now than before the internet. It'd sure be nice to just have to convince a couple of movie critics the movie is good instead of having to convince a massive swarm of people watching the whole thing.
Sucks having to make a good movie instead of just a 200 million dollar one, don't it?
I'm not convinced that Mike could hold his own in a live debate. Now Jon Stewart? There's a master debater.
Also, I don't think $10,000 or any reasonable amount of money is going to sway an industry lawyer into a mousetrap. All that said, still would be nice to see more articles done interview style and perhaps with some naysayers once in a while.
Cause Mike is too lazy to work on the weekends and doesn't trust anyone else to do write-ups, especially on "big news" like this? Not to place blame or anything, just making an observation.
Honestly I think it'd make more sense to be a little more reactive in these sorts of cases. Save some time by skipping the fluff middle of the day amusing articles and be ready to respond to big news on the weekends once in a while.
Are you arguing that the distinction between enforcement at the hardware level instead of the software level is deserving of a monopoly on the concept? Let's say I want to be slightly different and implement a virtual machine for basic operations, and have a host os that displays the ads and stops everything for interaction, is that also a non obvious extension of the concept?
I didn't read the patent, I don't know if what I described or what you described or both are what the patent describes. EITHER way, there's a lot of obvious extensions to this concept.
I fail to see why it's a good thing for anyone to grant a monopoly on the concept.
Something like Google street view or street cams do slightly reduce the level of privacy, because there's more people that can more easily view the area. Of course before that there wasn't absolute privacy or anything close to it, but on a side street with a fence only truck drivers or very tall people might have been able to view said "private" area. Now it is something that potentially a much larger audience can view.
This isn't to say that there's any legitimate need or any realistic way to stop such cameras and street view type of projects, just that the levels at which we are exposed is increasing due to technology. There is an effect and a trend happening here, and it's something that we do need to acknowledge and be aware of.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You won't read the WSJ anymore?
But cutting yourself off from the world (on the internet, in the information age, as an information provider/contributor) isn't a sustainable business model. Someone else can and will and has come along to take your place without cutting themselves off. This sort of hutzpah that says "I can wall myself off and they'll have to pay me, they have no choice" is a dangerous line of thinking.
But I can give you 30 examples live today that show that it is extremely difficult to monetize freeloaders to the degree necessary to support a business as a going concern, even partially. I agree that this will change (Hulu, in many ways, gives us all hope). But we have to get from here to there, and business that have dozens, hundreds or tens of thousands of employees need revenue along the way. A leap of faith is generally not regarded as a solid business strategy.
I hear this line of logic a lot, and correct if I'm interpreting incorrectly, but it sounds like you're saying that putting up a paywall isn't taking a risk? That's the part of your argument I fail to understand. Isn't shutting yourself off from the world now risking a lot of your possible future monetization? If we assume that at some point (or now, as you mentioned with Hulu) more people do make money off of those freeloaders and the internet at large, then haven't you already been left behind (or at the very least, lost significant market share) by removing yourself from the internet conversation? Is that not also a risk?
I make widget Y (say something that allows for a nice little image uploader using flash)
Big company Z rolls along and starts using widget Y in their site.
Others developers using company Z's site say, "hey, maybe we don't need to use a crappy upload button anymore, what else is out there" (Other users using company Z's site may just say, damn, that was easier)
I may or may not notice that facebook is using my widget Y. If I do, I note as such as my site and increase my viability.
If I don't, it still increases the number of people interested in said topic of widgets, and promotes said widgets as a whole, of which I am a part.
I suck at examples because I can only think about myself, but don't similar lines of logic apply for other sorts of software. If your software does something well, and others use it, doesn't it promote interest in that type of software? And if you do get credit, doesn't it promote interest in you?
Are you saying that this open source software freeloaders are in some way more harmful to open source than the other type of freeloader?
This is something I've failed to come to terms with in the Stallman theory, "How is someone who redistributes compiled only versions truly harming the open source project?" It seems like the sort of thing that serves to promote the original project and challenge it to provide something new and better in the same way a copy of a painting promotes the artist and provides them a challenge more ways to create something new and sell it.
IF a patent maximalist is correct and patents are absolutely necessary to encourage innovation, then wouldn't any action taken here undermine big pharma's faith in the patent system, and cause them to no longer innovate and create the next drug that actually does save a significant number of lives?
Isn't this bringing the moral argument in when there is none? There's life saving on both sides, and it sounds like this an example where their fictitious nonexistent side is stronger (more lives saved by future drug encouraged by system, then saved now by generic undermining patent system).
In this case, why were patents (or the length of patent granted) unnecessary for the original drug to be designed and produced? I don't know enough to answer that, but I think that'd be a more compelling argument then saving a few lives now at the risk of many lives in the future.
P.S. "They just aren't necessary" is a good answer, but I'm hoping for better/specifics.
It's encouraging also to see that there are some big business that are already more inclined to support a new mindset towards music distribution, and support discussions about it. Perhaps there are others like Guitar Center that make their money from music, but not from cd sales or some such media directly. Perhaps those others will start to recognize the opportunities to publicize themselves more by bringing about discussion on these topics.
In who's best interest is it for the media landscape to evolve? Someone who sells computers. Someone who sells sound equipment. Someone who does merchandising well. Someone who promotes concerts.
Live Nation, Guitar Center, Zazzle; Maybe these are the companies to watch. Maybe these are the companies to start.
Sad state of affairs when this is the most effective course of action proposed on this page. But I suppose we really are in a sad state of affairs, aren't we?
Really, this is what many are doing whether by holding their hands to their ears and hoping not get sued, or just being misinformed about the variety of patents they're already violating and being small enough to not get sued for. And apparently there's even a few doing it and yelling to others about in capital letters.
I don't think it's fair to label him a troll for offering a dissenting opinion, but you do point out one of the excellent reasons why he's wrong (This specific case is yet another where the second innovator copied nothing from the first).
He is making arguments similar to some things said here before about true / vertical / horizontal innovation, but I think it's important to point out all the reasons why he's so very, very wrong (not that I'm qualified to do it). Vertical innovation is also good, but killing horizontal innovation is very, very bad for both types, the line between the two is very blurry.
On the post: Would Top Sites Really Opt-Out Of Google Based On A Microsoft Bribe?
Re:
Microsoft is actually taking the only realistic strategy, build a better value. They're not succeeding wonderfully, but clearly with both Windows 7 and Bing, they're trying to offer better value to consumers.
On the post: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies
Re: Re: Re: Read the Comments
On the post: Essayist Writes Popular Essay... Then Sends 'Non-Negotiable' Invoice To Church Who Posts It Online
Re: Re: Anymous Coward
On the post: Essayist Writes Popular Essay... Then Sends 'Non-Negotiable' Invoice To Church Who Posts It Online
Re: This is one of the many reasons...
Locke and Demosthenes
On the post: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'
Re: Re: You guys scare me.
On the post: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'
Re: You guys scare me.
Most musicians I know don't want to be small businessmen, sell t-shirts, tour, and musicians like me, composers, song writers, film scorers, well, we're just guys with kids, backyards, college tuition. Music is our day job.
I think I agree with you on that point also, but it's also true that most eletricians I know don't want to run their entire business either. Some of them do, and they do. Some of they don't, and they work for large or small businesses that handle the "selling t shirts" aspects. Internet and technology has changed what opportunities there are for promoting and selling music. The industry, by which I mean existing and upcoming large and small businesses have yet to catch up, but the opportunities are there for either the entrepreneurial musician, or for the entrepreneurial businessman to help the musician.
All in all, I wouldn't take anything Mike says here too seriously as it's not his words that are changing the industry. But if I were you, I would worry about the inevitable changes that technology is driving. A lot of the aspects of the old model just aren't the best or most realistic ways to make money any more, and change will happen. Maybe look for some hope in the few articles that do talk about the positive aspects of change, and be ready for it.
On the post: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies
Re: Read the Comments
On the post: Sony Pictures Having Its Best Box Office Year Ever... Still Blaming Piracy For Killing The Business
Re: What a crock .....
... and if people downloaded it they probably wont have gone to see it, thats the way it works with movies that really suck ...
Maybe that's part of what they're really afraid of with this whole internet and piracy thing. The negative word of mouth and stigma happens with bad movies more-so now than before the internet. It'd sure be nice to just have to convince a couple of movie critics the movie is good instead of having to convince a massive swarm of people watching the whole thing.
Sucks having to make a good movie instead of just a 200 million dollar one, don't it?
On the post: Sony Pictures Having Its Best Box Office Year Ever... Still Blaming Piracy For Killing The Business
Re: Re:
Also, I don't think $10,000 or any reasonable amount of money is going to sway an industry lawyer into a mousetrap. All that said, still would be nice to see more articles done interview style and perhaps with some naysayers once in a while.
On the post: New Google Book Settlement Tries To Appease Worries
Re:
Honestly I think it'd make more sense to be a little more reactive in these sorts of cases. Save some time by skipping the fluff middle of the day amusing articles and be ready to respond to big news on the weekends once in a while.
On the post: Apple Tries To Patent Annoying People With Intrusive Advertising That Requires Attention
Re: Re: Been Done
I didn't read the patent, I don't know if what I described or what you described or both are what the patent describes. EITHER way, there's a lot of obvious extensions to this concept.
I fail to see why it's a good thing for anyone to grant a monopoly on the concept.
On the post: Switzerland Continues To Fight Google Street View; Takes Google To Court
On Privacy
This isn't to say that there's any legitimate need or any realistic way to stop such cameras and street view type of projects, just that the levels at which we are exposed is increasing due to technology. There is an effect and a trend happening here, and it's something that we do need to acknowledge and be aware of.
On the post: Will Murdoch Kill The One Smart Part Of The WSJ's Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You won't read the WSJ anymore?
On the post: Will Murdoch Kill The One Smart Part Of The WSJ's Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: You won't read the WSJ anymore?
But I can give you 30 examples live today that show that it is extremely difficult to monetize freeloaders to the degree necessary to support a business as a going concern, even partially. I agree that this will change (Hulu, in many ways, gives us all hope). But we have to get from here to there, and business that have dozens, hundreds or tens of thousands of employees need revenue along the way. A leap of faith is generally not regarded as a solid business strategy.
I hear this line of logic a lot, and correct if I'm interpreting incorrectly, but it sounds like you're saying that putting up a paywall isn't taking a risk? That's the part of your argument I fail to understand. Isn't shutting yourself off from the world now risking a lot of your possible future monetization? If we assume that at some point (or now, as you mentioned with Hulu) more people do make money off of those freeloaders and the internet at large, then haven't you already been left behind (or at the very least, lost significant market share) by removing yourself from the internet conversation? Is that not also a risk?
On the post: Compare And Contrast: How GPL Enforces Violations vs. How RIAA/MPAA/BSA Enforce Violations
Re: Re: Re: Freeloaders: Software vs Art
I suck at examples because I can only think about myself, but don't similar lines of logic apply for other sorts of software. If your software does something well, and others use it, doesn't it promote interest in that type of software? And if you do get credit, doesn't it promote interest in you?
On the post: Compare And Contrast: How GPL Enforces Violations vs. How RIAA/MPAA/BSA Enforce Violations
Re: Freeloaders: Software vs Art
This is something I've failed to come to terms with in the Stallman theory, "How is someone who redistributes compiled only versions truly harming the open source project?" It seems like the sort of thing that serves to promote the original project and challenge it to provide something new and better in the same way a copy of a painting promotes the artist and provides them a challenge more ways to create something new and sell it.
On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?
I don't understand
IF a patent maximalist is correct and patents are absolutely necessary to encourage innovation, then wouldn't any action taken here undermine big pharma's faith in the patent system, and cause them to no longer innovate and create the next drug that actually does save a significant number of lives?
Isn't this bringing the moral argument in when there is none? There's life saving on both sides, and it sounds like this an example where their fictitious nonexistent side is stronger (more lives saved by future drug encouraged by system, then saved now by generic undermining patent system).
In this case, why were patents (or the length of patent granted) unnecessary for the original drug to be designed and produced? I don't know enough to answer that, but I think that'd be a more compelling argument then saving a few lives now at the risk of many lives in the future.
P.S. "They just aren't necessary" is a good answer, but I'm hoping for better/specifics.
On the post: Blink-182's Tom Delonge: Time To Adapt, Give Music Away For Free, Monetize Other Things
Guitar Center
In who's best interest is it for the media landscape to evolve? Someone who sells computers. Someone who sells sound equipment. Someone who does merchandising well. Someone who promotes concerts.
Live Nation, Guitar Center, Zazzle; Maybe these are the companies to watch. Maybe these are the companies to start.
On the post: Clear And Concise Explanation For Why Software Patents Harm Innovation
Re:
Really, this is what many are doing whether by holding their hands to their ears and hoping not get sued, or just being misinformed about the variety of patents they're already violating and being small enough to not get sued for. And apparently there's even a few doing it and yelling to others about in capital letters.
On the post: Clear And Concise Explanation For Why Software Patents Harm Innovation
Re: Re: giggles
He is making arguments similar to some things said here before about true / vertical / horizontal innovation, but I think it's important to point out all the reasons why he's so very, very wrong (not that I'm qualified to do it). Vertical innovation is also good, but killing horizontal innovation is very, very bad for both types, the line between the two is very blurry.
Next >>