"...moving [The Olypmics] online is expensive and doesn't offer the same sort of returns."
"I don't think it is particularly reasonable to expect them to spend millions more for streaming..."
When making statements such as these, please provide links to factual evidence which support your argument. Simply claiming that it would be "expensive" and somewhere in the "millions" is an obvious (and pathetic) appeal to your (undeserved) confidence.
Moreover, claiming they would not make a dime off streaming this stuff online is just absurd. If they can find a way to make money putting this on TV, they should have no trouble doing the same for the Web. After all, you are still just watching flickering images on a rectangle box, one just happens to open web pages (not for long).
Try to follow me on this: if you access the application through a browser, then it is a browser-based application. Whatever they choose to do with client-side and server-side code to format/reformat/present information/videos is secondary to the fact that it is just a browser.
Is this concept really that new? Ever since I was a child I can remember getting free samples (provided by a hired employee/advertiser) at the grocery store. They are giving away content as a form of advertising.
"I don't have an interest in the local news or the local site, I am just a drive by story reader who ignores the rest of their site and disappears. If they lose people like me, I suspect they don't feel it is any loss at all."
This statement is disingenuous, and at best purely laughable. If you think any Internet advertising company believes what you just said, Google would be a very poor company. ANY TRAFFIC IS CONSIDERED GOOD TRAFFIC. Without a doubt you need to get back to Internet commerce 101.
Re: Re: This makes no sense to me, please explain.
People aren't interested in Support offerings of a software company. It might be a nice perk, but they expect the software to work...No one makes a purchase based on the fact they might have a good encounter once the software fails, they choose the least buggy software and forget about Support unless they absolutely need to.
Re: Re: This makes no sense to me, please explain.
"They aren't the full version, unlimited version, but they certainly are a "taste" of the product."
To clarify, I used "taste" in the context of the referenced article, which was to say (albeit theoretically) file sharing offers people a glimpse into what's out there, and once they find what they're looking for, they make a physical purchase.
Musicians have plenty of songs, so one or two might be considered a drop in the bucket, and may even lead to full sales of the album. But some software companies only have one product offering (thank god not mine), and while you could claim it's their fault for not having a wider product line, most startups come into existence going all in on one thing.
On Techdirt, music and the recording industry are always the target, which I am completely fine with, but it's being built into a straw man as of late - if we were talking about software, of which there are many software pirates, then how would all of this logic apply?
Is it Microsoft's short-sightedness that allowed me to illegally download Windows 7 (don't worry I didn't)? Was it their fault for not offering me some type of easy, online access to buy and electronically transfer Windows 7 to my local drive to install later?
We seem to be saying this about the recording industry, but I'm curious to see how Mike would apply this argument to software companies, who need to sell their software to make money, and are just not worried about some royalty clause that was inserted into the contact.
I say this because I work for a software firm. We need to sell our product to make money, how does downloading an illegal copy of our software compare to downloading a free song, or a free album or 100 free albums?
I can certainly tell you that most software companies are not in the business of offering a "taste" just so you can maybe purchase something later. (http://techdirt.com/articles/20100125/0825377891.shtml)
I can guarantee with 100% I wouldn't have bought any of the software I've obtained from free torrents. How do I know this? Because I haven't bought the software. End of story. Get over it.
Microsoft knows this and would rather you use their pirated software than use another companies. BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT POTENTIAL SALES.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, which happens most of the time.
Hi Mike, I recall numerous posts regarding the 'safe harbor' clause which allows big-media journalists to not reveal their sources when breaking a story. And I also recall many posts which stated bloggers (and student journalists) _should_ be covered by this clause, however I just stumbled upon your recent post in which you stated blogging _is not_ journalism, but rather a conversation. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091007/2149146455.shtml)
Given that statement, can you clarify your stance on the safe harbor topic? It seems like a decent parallel to the above story, since the FTC would like this rule to affect some but not others, based on some obscure definition.
I appreciate the feedback Mike, and wow, I definitely agree. I don't know how this type of backward thinking drove the movie industry to record profits last year. How the hell are they pulling this off? At least in this case, delaying customer satisfaction (read: pissing off the customer) by not giving them what they want when they want it is just moronic. People's propensity to consume for the latest movies only dwindles with time...why not tap into that buzz as soon as you can.
Mike, you keep linking to the 'add more Windows' argument, and I follow the links all the way down the rabbit hole, but never get an answer of explicitly what you are talking about. Please elaborate if you will.
Carl Sagan used marijuana for the purpose of enlightening. What's good enough for Carl is good enough for me.
"Sagan was a user of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[41][42] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences."
If I purchase an app from the AppStore, I can't give it away and am quite limited in my use of it. Does this mean apple isn't really selling anything? I would think not. So why bash Amazon for selling/renting (read: making money) on eBooks instead of physical books. Wouldn't you like this news? Technology trumps the brick-and-mortar? No? Ok.
Isn't this a bit of a strawman as well??
Who or what group is claiming that another group says everything should be free. There isn't, both for the former and latter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't legislate or bribe creativity
"But a true artist can take their knowledge and push past and develop something new."
Well done if you are referencing Immanuel Kant's notion of 'Genius', if not, you should be.
Read up, it'll make your argument stronger.
On the post: NBC Continues To Do The Exact Wrong Thing When It Comes To The Olympics Online
Re:
"I don't think it is particularly reasonable to expect them to spend millions more for streaming..."
When making statements such as these, please provide links to factual evidence which support your argument. Simply claiming that it would be "expensive" and somewhere in the "millions" is an obvious (and pathetic) appeal to your (undeserved) confidence.
Moreover, claiming they would not make a dime off streaming this stuff online is just absurd. If they can find a way to make money putting this on TV, they should have no trouble doing the same for the Web. After all, you are still just watching flickering images on a rectangle box, one just happens to open web pages (not for long).
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re:
On the post: USPTO Rejects Submission Because It Was Faxed 'Upside Down'
Re: Why not?
On the post: Content As Advertising; Advertising As Content On The iPhone
Old idea in a new era?
On the post: After Three Months, Newsday's Grand Paywall Experiment Has 35 Paying Customers. Yes, 35.
Re: Re: TAM the amazing TAMHOLE
This statement is disingenuous, and at best purely laughable. If you think any Internet advertising company believes what you just said, Google would be a very poor company. ANY TRAFFIC IS CONSIDERED GOOD TRAFFIC. Without a doubt you need to get back to Internet commerce 101.
On the post: Brian Eno Explains How The Recording Industry Is Like Whale Blubber
Re: Re: This makes no sense to me, please explain.
On the post: Brian Eno Explains How The Recording Industry Is Like Whale Blubber
Re: Re: This makes no sense to me, please explain.
To clarify, I used "taste" in the context of the referenced article, which was to say (albeit theoretically) file sharing offers people a glimpse into what's out there, and once they find what they're looking for, they make a physical purchase.
Musicians have plenty of songs, so one or two might be considered a drop in the bucket, and may even lead to full sales of the album. But some software companies only have one product offering (thank god not mine), and while you could claim it's their fault for not having a wider product line, most startups come into existence going all in on one thing.
This only begs the question further IMHO.
On the post: Brian Eno Explains How The Recording Industry Is Like Whale Blubber
This makes no sense to me, please explain.
Is it Microsoft's short-sightedness that allowed me to illegally download Windows 7 (don't worry I didn't)? Was it their fault for not offering me some type of easy, online access to buy and electronically transfer Windows 7 to my local drive to install later?
We seem to be saying this about the recording industry, but I'm curious to see how Mike would apply this argument to software companies, who need to sell their software to make money, and are just not worried about some royalty clause that was inserted into the contact.
I say this because I work for a software firm. We need to sell our product to make money, how does downloading an illegal copy of our software compare to downloading a free song, or a free album or 100 free albums?
I can certainly tell you that most software companies are not in the business of offering a "taste" just so you can maybe purchase something later. (http://techdirt.com/articles/20100125/0825377891.shtml)
Mike, thoughts?
On the post: How Many Questionable Assumptions Can You Layer On Top Of Each Other To Estimate Bogus 'Losses' From Unauthorized iPhone App Downloads?
I can guarantee with 100% I wouldn't have bought any of the software I've obtained from free torrents. How do I know this? Because I haven't bought the software. End of story. Get over it.
Microsoft knows this and would rather you use their pirated software than use another companies. BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT POTENTIAL SALES.
On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search
Pfttt
On the post: FTC's Disclosure Rules Apply To Bloggers... But Not Celebrities?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, which happens most of the time.
Given that statement, can you clarify your stance on the safe harbor topic? It seems like a decent parallel to the above story, since the FTC would like this rule to affect some but not others, based on some obscure definition.
Thanks!
On the post: Warner Bros. Gets Netflix To Delay Movies; You Don't Save Your Business By Pissing Off Your Customers
Re: Re:
On the post: Warner Bros. Gets Netflix To Delay Movies; You Don't Save Your Business By Pissing Off Your Customers
Thanks,
Mike
On the post: MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle
RE: RE: Right
Nope, sorry. I'm really just not interested.
Carl Sagan used marijuana for the purpose of enlightening. What's good enough for Carl is good enough for me.
"Sagan was a user of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[41][42] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
On the post: Amazon Announces It Sold More Kindle Books Than Physical Books On Christmas... But Doesn't It Mean Rented?
Re: This is iffy Mike:
Are you sure about that?
On the post: Amazon Announces It Sold More Kindle Books Than Physical Books On Christmas... But Doesn't It Mean Rented?
This is iffy Mike:
If I purchase an app from the AppStore, I can't give it away and am quite limited in my use of it. Does this mean apple isn't really selling anything? I would think not. So why bash Amazon for selling/renting (read: making money) on eBooks instead of physical books. Wouldn't you like this news? Technology trumps the brick-and-mortar? No? Ok.
On the post: Amazon Announces It Sold More Kindle Books Than Physical Books On Christmas... But Doesn't It Mean Rented?
This is iffy Mike,
On the post: Always Sunny In Giving People A Reason To Buy: Sitcom Produces Gag Product Featured On Show
Lawyerings
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Um, wait.
Who or what group is claiming that another group says everything should be free. There isn't, both for the former and latter.
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't legislate or bribe creativity
Well done if you are referencing Immanuel Kant's notion of 'Genius', if not, you should be.
Read up, it'll make your argument stronger.
Next >>