So why not call it D3:Online as some one suggested above? And as I pointed out above they didn't do that because they know they did not add enough to the online play OVER what D2 already offered to justify that. So we got removal of feature of the last game, local offline play, for... well... locking down and expanding the market AH (including balancing the loot drops to make the AH important which would have been retuned by moders in an offline mode) and the fact it acts as DRM.
All stuff that only benefits blizzard and comes at a cost to you as a consumer. Even if you don't mind and love the game you shouldn't as a consumer be actively defending it.
What's amazing about this is that your whole post is just examples of how always online benefits Blizzard and you trying to downplay the negative impact of that on the consumer.
And you seem to think this is some how meant to win the argument in blizzards favour? You post summed up is effectively
"This thing they did that is good for them and bad for you is good for them so stop complaining that it's bad for you"
None of us work of Blizzard so none of us should care what is "good for lbizzard" we should care about the state the game from our view as consumers. When a company is doing that's that vastly benefit them at a cost to you as a consumer the thing to do is complain about it and stop giving them your money.
There is also an interview from before the game came out (I don't have time to go dig it up) where a blizzard representative said always online acting as DRM was a part of the reason why they decided to do it.
The issues of cheating in D2 where due to battle net being broken and other issues not because people could play with local offline only characters.
D3 online play does relatively little that D2 online play did not do and yet D3 is online only and D2 is not. So a major feature has been removed, local offline play, for an online play that is not fundamentally different from the last game that offered both.
This was done, we were told at the time, to improve player experience but now we are told that it has to do with DRM... which every one knew anyway. It also has to do with blizzard wanting to ensure that there is a market for the auction houses in the game.
If they offered local offline play those people couldn't sell to the AH because blizzard couldn't be sure items where not created by cheating. Not only that but those playesr are far more unlikely to buy a powerful item from the AH if they can hack flies to do so locally.
More insidiousness that even that is the fact that drop rates in the game are balanced around the idea of having an AH. I'm told at higher difficulty there are places where you almost have to use the AH to progress (more or less so depending on class) and if that is the case then offering offline play comes with a bigger problem.
People would likely hack the files and retune the drop rates making the single player offline likely a better game than the online one.
"Error 32 was caused by several millions of players buying the game too quickly which Blizzard did their best to accommodate, but still just didn't have enough servers in the end (they over-compensated, just not enough). It took time to set up new servers for the insane load demand."
That doesn't change the fact that players could not play the game they paid for due to a decision on blizzards part that was in part to do with DRM. That's not acceptable.
"The problem is there is never going to be a direct, overnight shift"
According the industries there should be given that every download is a lost sale (the logic they use to base their damage claims on when suing people) then when there is one less download there should be automatically one more sale.
Unless the industry wants to admit that "lost sale" means "lost feature sale" and since the future hasn't happened yet that makes it a "lost potential sale" and once we get them to admit that download only represent a sale in potential we can start having a grown up discussion about how much piracy actually hurts the industry... which is actually likely not all that much... at which point we can repel these kind of laws and the industry can take the time to deal with the real problems causing their lost sales i.e. them self's.
If download in a month drop but sales do not go up then we have huge proof that downloads are not lost sales. What the industry forgets is that most people have a given budget for media, if some pirates more than that budget there comes a point at which their action of pirating does not actually hurt any one because it's not money they would have ever spent.
Most serious pirates download more content than they could reasonably consume let alone pay and as such using "downloaded" numbers as some kind of measure of harm is idiotic.
Just take Iphones, you can only pirate apps on jail broken phones which make up what? 20% of the market or there abouts and yet app devs will talk about HUGE piracy of their apps. Which is strange, if we say an app had a 90% piracy rate that rate can only become from 20% of the market and so rather than 90% of market for the app not buying it it can only be at most the same percentage as jail broken iphones.
Given that there are a whole wealth of reasons for jailbraking your iphone rather than just pirating apps then we have to assume that not every jail broken phone belongs to a pirate. So the percentage of the market who pirate apps is less that 20%, maybe a lot less.
What is happening here is that since pirates don't have to cearfully pick what they will and won't buy app wise due to budgets like normal consumers do. This means they consume VASTLY more than most none pirating consumers and so vastly inflates the rate of piracy.
There is an assumption in the industry that a download count exists in isolation and is representative of a users buying habbits. And that is not only idiotic it makes them think the amount of the market they are actually having trouble with is vastly larger than it ever could be. Which leads to the them pushing of laws like this that are not only dangerous but which will never be as effective as they think they should have been.
Even if a piracy law worked really well put a real long term dent in piracy the actual benefit to the industry (if there is one at all actually) will be so much less than they expect that the industry will presume the law is not doing enough and lobby for stricter laws that likely come at the expense of normal people.
They are trying to legislate for a world that does not exist while doing massive damage to the one that does.
It's simple, and just one step more in your logic to do with the auction houses. If you let people play offline and not sell to the AH then you are reducing the number of players who might use that AH. Then even if you let offline players just buy from the AH you've got to ask "why would an offline player bother to pay for a cheat item when they could just hack one in?".
Next, and this is where it gets really fun, the game is balanced around making using the AH a important feature. In the harder difficulty levels I'm told that there are points where you are almost required (some classes more than others) to use the AH to effectively progress.
Given that's the case some one would likely retune offline drop rates to mitigate these issues. By doing so they would make the offline play an objectively better version of the game.
In other words the auction houses screwed D3 both from an consumer rights stand point and from an game play stand point.
But it might make blizzard money so that's all ok right?
Can you name me any new online features in Diablo 3 that do not exist in one form or another in Diablo 2? This can not include any general improvement in mechanics that could apply to single player or local co-op play. As far as I can tell there's only really one and that is the auction houses.
Now name me a major feature that existed in Diablo 2 but does not exist in Diablo 3? Local only characters for offline play as an example.
So D3 adds relatively little to it's online play over D2s online play but removes the option to have an local only character for offline single player or local co-op play.
This is not an issue of systematics it's an issue of features. D3 does not do much online that people would not have expected from a Diablo game while at the same time removing options for offline play the existed in it's last one.
As an example lets look at Knights of the Old Republic, kotor had 2 single player only games before the franchise was moved online as the MMO The Old Republic. While some people, including my self, grumbled that we here not going to get kotor3 no one thought that TOR should come with offline play. It's very clear to any one with a lick of sense that TOR is a fundamental different game from the Kotor games and that it's built from the ground up as an online only game. It's an mmo, the other games are not.
The same thing can not be said of Diablo 3 and the other Diablo games. The game D3 is is not fundamentally different to D2 or even D1 and there is very little if anything in it's design that requires the game be playable online.
I guess the post telling point about why the idea of calling it "Diablo 3: Online" is the fact that Blizzard didn't chose to do so. They didn't do this because they clearly knew that they had not changed (did not even set out to change) the game enough to justify that kind of title. If they'd called the game that all the issues would remain and a whole boat load of new ones would be added. Fans would question how it was "D3:O" when it did little more than D2's online play had already done.
On top of all that is the simple fact that this move to require online play was taken after the majority of development was done. They didn't really do anything to the game other than not include the game logic in the local install and remove the "play offline" button from the menu.
In other words nothing about the online play in D3 would likely be any different what so ever if they had allowed local only offline play.
Given all that I fail to see how you can justify the very simplistic idea that this issue could be overcome with a change in wording.
If only Blizzard could think up a way to keep people who might be able to cheat from playing online... like that company did with that game, what was it called? Diablo 2 I think, where they had an "offline mode" and an "online mode" and you couldn't take characters set to offline mode online! That's genius!
Diablo 2 had an option where you could play off line, this was a local only character that couldn't be taken online in case of cheating. Ignoring the fact that battlenet was a cheatfilled mess anyway that simple little fact makes D2 a far more fully featured game than D3 and there is no reasonable reason why they couldn't have included local only play.
Their PR line on the matter? "We don't want you to feel left out if you play solo and then want to go online with your friends using that characters"
The real reasons? Well both before the game came out and just recently blizzard have stated that part of the reason for going with always online was how it would act as effective DRM. So part of their motivation was to limit their paying consumers use of the product so they can stop none paying users playing the game.
The other reason and what is the real dirty little secret here is the real money auction house. If blizzard allowed offline play it would limit and reduce the market of both the auction houses, real money and otherwise. This is done in two ways, firstly offline characters could not put items up for sale on the AH as blizzard would be unable to confirm that they where not acquired by cheating. Secondly any one playing offline is not going to spend real money on a item (a cheat in essence) when people will be hacking the offline files for mods and other stuff.
In other words Blizzard removed a feature of their game limiting when and how the people who buy it use it for two major reasons. DRM and pushing their real money auction house.
It ends with millions of paying consumers not being able to play their game due to "features" that aimed purely at benefiting Blizzard at the expense of their customers.
And this is the reason why I said I wouldn't buy D3 before it came out and I never will.
Ya who needs an free press and an informed public in a democracy. People who spend time understanding a given set of issues should only ever, instead of trying to inform the public.... oh wait, if the public is no informed or aware of the issues their platform is based on and has no sources other than a person who is running that platform to become informed about those issues they are not going to be able to make an informed voting decision and as such the platform is undermined.
In other words Mike is doing something about it and if you don't understand what that is or why it's important then you are less a troll and more a silly uniformed dumb ass.
"ne of the great things about the new model is that you can hire people to be you online, and nobody will know."
And what about in person at gigs and meeting fans? Can you pay some one to be you then? In this day and age, as proven by the reddit thread, it's very easy for all the people who have see your behaviour to get together and talk about it.
If we go with your view and imagine that the response to this issue has been handled by Chris's PR rather than him self and that his crying on camera was directed by his PR people to try and regain the fan base he is losing.
In your world there is no way for us to know or even make a guess at if the apology is honest or not. You say we have to presume that it's real and heart felt and move on. Yet that's not what's happening is it? What's happening is that the reddit thread attracted people who also had a story about Chris being a dick to come out and tell it. While of course there is no way to confirm if most of it's true or not there is enough there to cast doubt on the integrity and honesty of his apology.
In other words his online PR can be handled in a flawless manner by a 3rd party from this point on but not only do I think you give PR people to much and fans too little credit in working out when an artist is being handled so but the only way his "apology" is ever going to be accepted is through his direct interaction with his fans changes.
"MC Chris was human, and pays for it. Not really a good lesson, is it?"
And again you miss the point I'm trying to make. Yes Chris paid for it but the lesson is not "don't be a human" it's "don't be an ass" because if you are not human you can't connect with your fans, and if your not an ass you can't be awesome. Both of those things are equally important in getting the most out of the new model.
In the old model shutting down an artist and hiding them behind a wall of PR people is something you could do. In the new model you can't. What's changed is simply that if you are an asshole you are going to have a much harder time creating the new kind of interaction with your fan base that you need.
Either you shut your self down, be less open and less human, or you end up showing that you are an ass and not awesome. In other words you just can't be an ass because you can no longer hide.
You are saying that nothing has changed because artists can't "risk" being human? Well in the view of the new system that techdirt seems to promote (and I agree with and you seemingly are not bothering to acknowledged as our given logic) you just as much can't risk not being.
The issue here is that people (including his tour manager) have said that this is far from the first time his done something like this. The impression that I've gotten from reading people stories (and this is of course to be taken with a huge pinch of salt) is that Chris actively looks for excuses to throw out some one he can paint as a "bully".
What ever the reasons behind it all I simply hope that his learnt his lesson and acts better towards the people who have paid to see him in the future.
To address your actual point, now you've made it, the mantra around these parts is, if I can be so bold as to summarise "be more open, be more human, be more awesome and connect with your fans". Notice the awesome part.
MC Chris from the sounds of it may very well be a bit of an asshole. That means his going to have a hard time being awesome. So what can he do? Well as you suggest he can hide that part of him self an attempt to control his public image but that is being unhuman and closed (and would likely backfire) or he can actually change.
The point being that part of successes in the new way of doing things is simply coming down to being a good person as well as a good artist because people will always want to support some nice who's work they like over some one not nice who's work they equally like.
That's nothing new, it just so happens that we now live in a world where finding out if an artist is nice or not is a matter of time rather than a matter of PR.
And is there a reason that you couldn't have said that in the first place rather than making a vague statement that did not in anyway what so ever convey your point before calling some one an idiot?
Oh forgot to add, I play in a band and I love live music, I attend a lot of gigs. Do you know how often I don't watch at lest one of the acts because they are awful? A lot, does that mean I should have to leave the venue and never come back? That I don't have the right to criticize an act?
If my band plays like shit I fully expect to be told, if some one does not like my band that's up to them and so long as they are not heckling or otherwise being disruptive has nothing to do with me and nor should it. If they want to voice that view that's up to them and actually when they are able to provide constructive criticism it can be vastly useful and of more value to my bands growth than "you guys are awesome".
Thinking that I can be kicked out of a show 'cus the main act is back stage monitoring twitter and get's their panties in a bunch 'cus I said something they don't like is kinda sicking.
So I don't like the opening act so I should leave before the main act (likely the act I've paid to see who's music I've heard and enjoyed enough to buy a ticket to see live) plays?
It's not "his show" it's the audiences show. They are literary paying his wage. By throwing the guy out Chris has effectively taken the guys money to render a service that he then does not render for utterly personal reasons.
There are lots of reasons why some one could or should be removed from a show by the venue. There are terms of conduct that are agreed to and a venue has a duty to make sure people are safe and that one person is not disrupting the enjoyment of others with their conduct. Tweeting "I do not like the opening act" is not one of those reasons and an the main act should have no say what so ever on throwing people out of a venue if they are not also owner of the venue or promoter of the night and even then they have to justify their actions with more than "they hurt my feelings".
As stated above so long as something is showing on your screen or coming out of your speakers you can copy it. All that moves like this are intended to do is to raise the barrier of entry and make it hard enough that the typical user simply won't bother. Be that it's too incontinent or requires a level of skill and knowledge that they don't have and can't / won't invest in getting.
The war on piracy is and always has been a war on the convenience of being a pirate. They do this because they (oddly) understand that convenience (rather than being free) is one of the major reason why people pirate. Rather than adapt to compete with this level of convenience they are seeking to make it as inconvenient or more so to pirate than buy a legal copy. This is born out of some mad idea that since people will often opt to pay for legal content when it's available a level of convenience they enjoy those same people then must be happy to pay for inconvenient legal content when there is no more convenient illegal option.
Point being that being able to drop a URL of a youtube video in to a box and get a mp3 out is a hell of a lot more convenient than messing around in the way you point out. Even next to browser extensions it's something that makes sense to a wider number of people. I'm pretty sure my mum, who would have no idea other browsers existed if I hadn't pointed them out, could understand going to a website and putting in the youtube URL.
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re: Re:
All stuff that only benefits blizzard and comes at a cost to you as a consumer. Even if you don't mind and love the game you shouldn't as a consumer be actively defending it.
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re:
And you seem to think this is some how meant to win the argument in blizzards favour? You post summed up is effectively
"This thing they did that is good for them and bad for you is good for them so stop complaining that it's bad for you"
None of us work of Blizzard so none of us should care what is "good for lbizzard" we should care about the state the game from our view as consumers. When a company is doing that's that vastly benefit them at a cost to you as a consumer the thing to do is complain about it and stop giving them your money.
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re: Not some DRM issue!
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/19/blizzard-acknowledges-diablo-iii-always-on-is-dr m/
There is also an interview from before the game came out (I don't have time to go dig it up) where a blizzard representative said always online acting as DRM was a part of the reason why they decided to do it.
The issues of cheating in D2 where due to battle net being broken and other issues not because people could play with local offline only characters.
D3 online play does relatively little that D2 online play did not do and yet D3 is online only and D2 is not. So a major feature has been removed, local offline play, for an online play that is not fundamentally different from the last game that offered both.
This was done, we were told at the time, to improve player experience but now we are told that it has to do with DRM... which every one knew anyway. It also has to do with blizzard wanting to ensure that there is a market for the auction houses in the game.
If they offered local offline play those people couldn't sell to the AH because blizzard couldn't be sure items where not created by cheating. Not only that but those playesr are far more unlikely to buy a powerful item from the AH if they can hack flies to do so locally.
More insidiousness that even that is the fact that drop rates in the game are balanced around the idea of having an AH. I'm told at higher difficulty there are places where you almost have to use the AH to progress (more or less so depending on class) and if that is the case then offering offline play comes with a bigger problem.
People would likely hack the files and retune the drop rates making the single player offline likely a better game than the online one.
"Error 32 was caused by several millions of players buying the game too quickly which Blizzard did their best to accommodate, but still just didn't have enough servers in the end (they over-compensated, just not enough). It took time to set up new servers for the insane load demand."
That doesn't change the fact that players could not play the game they paid for due to a decision on blizzards part that was in part to do with DRM. That's not acceptable.
On the post: NZ Copyright Industry Claims New 'Three Strikes' Law Halved Movie Infringements After One Month: So What?
Re: Re: Re:
According the industries there should be given that every download is a lost sale (the logic they use to base their damage claims on when suing people) then when there is one less download there should be automatically one more sale.
Unless the industry wants to admit that "lost sale" means "lost feature sale" and since the future hasn't happened yet that makes it a "lost potential sale" and once we get them to admit that download only represent a sale in potential we can start having a grown up discussion about how much piracy actually hurts the industry... which is actually likely not all that much... at which point we can repel these kind of laws and the industry can take the time to deal with the real problems causing their lost sales i.e. them self's.
If download in a month drop but sales do not go up then we have huge proof that downloads are not lost sales. What the industry forgets is that most people have a given budget for media, if some pirates more than that budget there comes a point at which their action of pirating does not actually hurt any one because it's not money they would have ever spent.
Most serious pirates download more content than they could reasonably consume let alone pay and as such using "downloaded" numbers as some kind of measure of harm is idiotic.
Just take Iphones, you can only pirate apps on jail broken phones which make up what? 20% of the market or there abouts and yet app devs will talk about HUGE piracy of their apps. Which is strange, if we say an app had a 90% piracy rate that rate can only become from 20% of the market and so rather than 90% of market for the app not buying it it can only be at most the same percentage as jail broken iphones.
Given that there are a whole wealth of reasons for jailbraking your iphone rather than just pirating apps then we have to assume that not every jail broken phone belongs to a pirate. So the percentage of the market who pirate apps is less that 20%, maybe a lot less.
What is happening here is that since pirates don't have to cearfully pick what they will and won't buy app wise due to budgets like normal consumers do. This means they consume VASTLY more than most none pirating consumers and so vastly inflates the rate of piracy.
There is an assumption in the industry that a download count exists in isolation and is representative of a users buying habbits. And that is not only idiotic it makes them think the amount of the market they are actually having trouble with is vastly larger than it ever could be. Which leads to the them pushing of laws like this that are not only dangerous but which will never be as effective as they think they should have been.
Even if a piracy law worked really well put a real long term dent in piracy the actual benefit to the industry (if there is one at all actually) will be so much less than they expect that the industry will presume the law is not doing enough and lobby for stricter laws that likely come at the expense of normal people.
They are trying to legislate for a world that does not exist while doing massive damage to the one that does.
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Diablo 3 Online
It's simple, and just one step more in your logic to do with the auction houses. If you let people play offline and not sell to the AH then you are reducing the number of players who might use that AH. Then even if you let offline players just buy from the AH you've got to ask "why would an offline player bother to pay for a cheat item when they could just hack one in?".
Next, and this is where it gets really fun, the game is balanced around making using the AH a important feature. In the harder difficulty levels I'm told that there are points where you are almost required (some classes more than others) to use the AH to effectively progress.
Given that's the case some one would likely retune offline drop rates to mitigate these issues. By doing so they would make the offline play an objectively better version of the game.
In other words the auction houses screwed D3 both from an consumer rights stand point and from an game play stand point.
But it might make blizzard money so that's all ok right?
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re: Diablo 3 Online
Now name me a major feature that existed in Diablo 2 but does not exist in Diablo 3? Local only characters for offline play as an example.
So D3 adds relatively little to it's online play over D2s online play but removes the option to have an local only character for offline single player or local co-op play.
This is not an issue of systematics it's an issue of features. D3 does not do much online that people would not have expected from a Diablo game while at the same time removing options for offline play the existed in it's last one.
As an example lets look at Knights of the Old Republic, kotor had 2 single player only games before the franchise was moved online as the MMO The Old Republic. While some people, including my self, grumbled that we here not going to get kotor3 no one thought that TOR should come with offline play. It's very clear to any one with a lick of sense that TOR is a fundamental different game from the Kotor games and that it's built from the ground up as an online only game. It's an mmo, the other games are not.
The same thing can not be said of Diablo 3 and the other Diablo games. The game D3 is is not fundamentally different to D2 or even D1 and there is very little if anything in it's design that requires the game be playable online.
I guess the post telling point about why the idea of calling it "Diablo 3: Online" is the fact that Blizzard didn't chose to do so. They didn't do this because they clearly knew that they had not changed (did not even set out to change) the game enough to justify that kind of title. If they'd called the game that all the issues would remain and a whole boat load of new ones would be added. Fans would question how it was "D3:O" when it did little more than D2's online play had already done.
On top of all that is the simple fact that this move to require online play was taken after the majority of development was done. They didn't really do anything to the game other than not include the game logic in the local install and remove the "play offline" button from the menu.
In other words nothing about the online play in D3 would likely be any different what so ever if they had allowed local only offline play.
Given all that I fail to see how you can justify the very simplistic idea that this issue could be overcome with a change in wording.
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re: Re: Re: Diablo 3 Online
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re: Re:
Their PR line on the matter? "We don't want you to feel left out if you play solo and then want to go online with your friends using that characters"
The real reasons? Well both before the game came out and just recently blizzard have stated that part of the reason for going with always online was how it would act as effective DRM. So part of their motivation was to limit their paying consumers use of the product so they can stop none paying users playing the game.
The other reason and what is the real dirty little secret here is the real money auction house. If blizzard allowed offline play it would limit and reduce the market of both the auction houses, real money and otherwise. This is done in two ways, firstly offline characters could not put items up for sale on the AH as blizzard would be unable to confirm that they where not acquired by cheating. Secondly any one playing offline is not going to spend real money on a item (a cheat in essence) when people will be hacking the offline files for mods and other stuff.
In other words Blizzard removed a feature of their game limiting when and how the people who buy it use it for two major reasons. DRM and pushing their real money auction house.
It ends with millions of paying consumers not being able to play their game due to "features" that aimed purely at benefiting Blizzard at the expense of their customers.
And this is the reason why I said I wouldn't buy D3 before it came out and I never will.
On the post: Court Says State Department Can Live In Fantasyland & Pretend Documents Leaked By Wikileaks Are Still Secret
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Says State Department Can Live In Fantasyland & Pretend Documents Leaked By Wikileaks Are Still Secret
Re:
In other words Mike is doing something about it and if you don't understand what that is or why it's important then you are less a troll and more a silly uniformed dumb ass.
On the post: Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what about in person at gigs and meeting fans? Can you pay some one to be you then? In this day and age, as proven by the reddit thread, it's very easy for all the people who have see your behaviour to get together and talk about it.
If we go with your view and imagine that the response to this issue has been handled by Chris's PR rather than him self and that his crying on camera was directed by his PR people to try and regain the fan base he is losing.
In your world there is no way for us to know or even make a guess at if the apology is honest or not. You say we have to presume that it's real and heart felt and move on. Yet that's not what's happening is it? What's happening is that the reddit thread attracted people who also had a story about Chris being a dick to come out and tell it. While of course there is no way to confirm if most of it's true or not there is enough there to cast doubt on the integrity and honesty of his apology.
In other words his online PR can be handled in a flawless manner by a 3rd party from this point on but not only do I think you give PR people to much and fans too little credit in working out when an artist is being handled so but the only way his "apology" is ever going to be accepted is through his direct interaction with his fans changes.
"MC Chris was human, and pays for it. Not really a good lesson, is it?"
And again you miss the point I'm trying to make. Yes Chris paid for it but the lesson is not "don't be a human" it's "don't be an ass" because if you are not human you can't connect with your fans, and if your not an ass you can't be awesome. Both of those things are equally important in getting the most out of the new model.
On the post: Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the old model shutting down an artist and hiding them behind a wall of PR people is something you could do. In the new model you can't. What's changed is simply that if you are an asshole you are going to have a much harder time creating the new kind of interaction with your fan base that you need.
Either you shut your self down, be less open and less human, or you end up showing that you are an ass and not awesome. In other words you just can't be an ass because you can no longer hide.
You are saying that nothing has changed because artists can't "risk" being human? Well in the view of the new system that techdirt seems to promote (and I agree with and you seemingly are not bothering to acknowledged as our given logic) you just as much can't risk not being.
On the post: Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show
Re: Re: Time to meet?
What ever the reasons behind it all I simply hope that his learnt his lesson and acts better towards the people who have paid to see him in the future.
On the post: Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show
Re: Re: Re:
MC Chris from the sounds of it may very well be a bit of an asshole. That means his going to have a hard time being awesome. So what can he do? Well as you suggest he can hide that part of him self an attempt to control his public image but that is being unhuman and closed (and would likely backfire) or he can actually change.
The point being that part of successes in the new way of doing things is simply coming down to being a good person as well as a good artist because people will always want to support some nice who's work they like over some one not nice who's work they equally like.
That's nothing new, it just so happens that we now live in a world where finding out if an artist is nice or not is a matter of time rather than a matter of PR.
On the post: Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show
Re: Re:
If my band plays like shit I fully expect to be told, if some one does not like my band that's up to them and so long as they are not heckling or otherwise being disruptive has nothing to do with me and nor should it. If they want to voice that view that's up to them and actually when they are able to provide constructive criticism it can be vastly useful and of more value to my bands growth than "you guys are awesome".
Thinking that I can be kicked out of a show 'cus the main act is back stage monitoring twitter and get's their panties in a bunch 'cus I said something they don't like is kinda sicking.
On the post: Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show
Re:
It's not "his show" it's the audiences show. They are literary paying his wage. By throwing the guy out Chris has effectively taken the guys money to render a service that he then does not render for utterly personal reasons.
There are lots of reasons why some one could or should be removed from a show by the venue. There are terms of conduct that are agreed to and a venue has a duty to make sure people are safe and that one person is not disrupting the enjoyment of others with their conduct. Tweeting "I do not like the opening act" is not one of those reasons and an the main act should have no say what so ever on throwing people out of a venue if they are not also owner of the venue or promoter of the night and even then they have to justify their actions with more than "they hurt my feelings".
On the post: Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show
Re:
Talk about a jackass line. I don't even have to tweet it to prove you are an idiot.
(Oh look, I can not bother to make a point too!)
On the post: Users Rise Up To Get YouTube MP3 Downloader Re-Instated
Re: Re: Converting Youtube videos to audio
On the post: Users Rise Up To Get YouTube MP3 Downloader Re-Instated
Re: Converting Youtube videos to audio
The war on piracy is and always has been a war on the convenience of being a pirate. They do this because they (oddly) understand that convenience (rather than being free) is one of the major reason why people pirate. Rather than adapt to compete with this level of convenience they are seeking to make it as inconvenient or more so to pirate than buy a legal copy. This is born out of some mad idea that since people will often opt to pay for legal content when it's available a level of convenience they enjoy those same people then must be happy to pay for inconvenient legal content when there is no more convenient illegal option.
Point being that being able to drop a URL of a youtube video in to a box and get a mp3 out is a hell of a lot more convenient than messing around in the way you point out. Even next to browser extensions it's something that makes sense to a wider number of people. I'm pretty sure my mum, who would have no idea other browsers existed if I hadn't pointed them out, could understand going to a website and putting in the youtube URL.
Next >>