One way you profit selling below cost is by selling other more profitable items with the below cost item. On aggregate, you make a profit.
There is also the question of locked money. If you have stock worth a certain amount, and the cost of money is 10%, if you have to hold onto something for a period of time, you lose money with it sitting. Retailing it more quickly at less than your cost of money is beneficial to the bottom line.(see Wal-mart, lower down)
Another would be if you have already sold enough widgets at a sufficient unit price to have covered your costs. Every sale after that would be 100% profit, even if it is below cost price.
Another would be a tied sale, where you sell a product below cost, but bind the buyer to also enter into a much more profitable agreement. Monthly gym memberships (or Extenze tablets) being examples of selling cheap (or for free) with a tied continued profitable sale.
One other way is bonus systems for restocking or ordering. If you have a bodega and you have a bunch of Cola that cost you $1 a bottle to stock, and your supplier comes in and offers you a whole bunch more cola at $0.50 a bottle, your aggregate cost (on equal stock) would be 75 cents, so you would sell all the cola that cost you $1 and 89 cents and still make a "profit" on inventory.
Finally, you get into the more complex concept of "the turn". Walmart is pretty famous for this. Walmart only keeps products for a certain amount of time, and will do almost anything to move the products out and replace them with better selling products. Even if they are losing some money on a current sale, they are in fact profiting in the long run by freeing up the floor space for more profitable items. Walmart doesn't always make a profit on each sale, but they make money over the year by turning the stock more often and restocking into more profitable items that will sell quickly.
There are plenty of examples, in car rental and airlines. Airlines often sell tickets under "cost", because an empty seat is lost money. That under cost ticket is often offset by more profitable seats on the plane, plus the yield difference when the lower seats are sold and prices move up.
I could go on, but I think most of those are reasonable, without cracking a book or looking anything up online.
walks like duck, quacks like duck, shits like duck, I call you a duck. You are more than angry enough to use VPN and other methods, so Mike wouldn't know (unless he is the one cowarding, which would be totally awesome).
WHAT has copyright to do with this treaty? And if its SO necessary, why wasnt it included as a main point before now? And why all the secrecy? Arent those who govern us supposed to INCLUDE us?
I don't KNOW at ALL. I am NOT sure WHAT you ARE trying TO ask ME.
Seriously, the government doesn't include you (specifically or generally) in everything they do. You aren't aware of all that is said in security meetings, you aren't privy to everything discussed in cabinet, and you aren't privy to everything discussed in a treaty negotiation.
Rather than hopping up and down and getting all ramped up about something you have no information about, why not save your energy for the point that the treaty is revealed and sent to congress for approval? If you really don't like it, make a stink when it is time to stink. Right now you are just like a shark eating chum that other people are throwing out there, but there is nothing in the water to really bite. Save your energy for when it might actually matter.
Very sure. I am actually surprised Mike went for this, it's now twice in a week he has talked about people who think that his ideas are full of it. The billboard guy pretty much reamed him a new eye hole.
I am a big believer in the artists (music and movies, example), not just the big names in front but all the little guys (and girls) in the back that actually make is possible. both industries require a fairly high number of people to make it all work, and work well, and work all over the world.
I am also a big believer that you need a little bit of "lubrication" to make the wheels turn. That is the investment money that is put out there to allow artists to write and record new material, to afford good studios, great producers, maybe to buy some great songs to sing, etc. That money doesn't just come out of the sky, it comes with a price attached to it.
I don't think anyone at all is saying "you can't do it that way", but I think many of them are objecting because they are getting dragged into it without any desire to be there. If I was a professional songwriter who makes my living off of points on an album, I would be very upset if my work was put all over the internet for free, effectively cutting away my livelihood. That shouldn't be anyone else choice except those people who hold the rights.
It is important to separate out "new business models" from "rampant piracy". Mike's model seems to be "bend over and use the lube", which is a horrible way to accept fate.
I also object because much of what is presented here is like talking about making all beef hot dogs without discussing how you go from a live cow to a hot dog in a bun. It would be really nice if we could just get the cow to magically jump into the tubes and become a hot dog right there, but reality is that there are feed lots, transport, slaughter houses, butchers, grinding, and a whole bunch of other things that happen in between. What I get from Techdirt is "here is a picture of a cow, here is a picture of a hot dog, now go do it yourself!". Ignoring all that happens in the middle (and all the people required, and all the costs that happen) is pretty misleading.
Yes, I compared the music business to making hot dogs (or sausages, but I didn't want to discuss pork on this blog). Both of them are messy processes with lots of grinding and blood, but the end results are generally pretty good. More mustard please!
So the problem is that it is easy to dismiss the **aa's and "the industry" as all bad and ugly, because they aren't people (except that the courts just ruled they are, but that is for another day). It is hard to hate on people. It is hard to hate on the song writer who loses their living, or the session musician who can no longer get paid, or the bands that instead of getting an advance and a big break will be forever flogging t-shirts at their beer money shows, working McJobs to make ends meet. Those are people getting hurt in the process, who didn't want any of this to happen.
Yes, "think about the poor people". It makes a difference.
First, on the title, let's get serious. Every time someone claims "piracy is stealing" it suddenly becomes that much more difficult to take them seriously, because it shows they've put no thought into their argument and are parroting specious arguments that have nothing to do with reality.
Are you going to go spank that naughty judge who called it stealing? Are you going to insult Trent Reznor who called it stealing?
You have something you are not suppose to have, you have paid for, and shouldn't have in your possession. How did you get it? "Oh, it just materialized." No, really, you obtained it illegally, right? Grandma would call it stealing.
plenty of business models that don't require copyright are working quite well in the industry.
Earth to bootstrap control, Mike is quoting himself. Always good to take opinion and add some opinion on top. We get to the same place, almost every one of those "business models" starts with "and here is someone really famous", who can afford to not make a living writing and recording music.
This thread is almost a classic already. Doesn't it make you wonder when more and more people are calling your ideas out as smoke and mirrors?
Re: Re: Re: Blatant attempt to justify Big Media behavior
haha... sorry RD, I used a wrong word to describe them. You are so right, and I am so wrong. They just collect fees for published music being used in public.
How ever will you forgive me? Do you need me to kick your dog for you or something?
Remember: "Tracks 4 and 8 published by Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP)."
I am saying that the legal system needs an expedient method to allow copyright holders to be able to react to infringement in a timely manner. There needs to be a short and simple way (1 business day) for a court to be able to issue an order to an ISP to turn over customer information, so that they can be served properly and the legal case can move forward.
There is no "Judge Jury and Executioner", just the ability to get the right party on the line for the violation.
Essentially, the standard for obtaining the information from the ISP should be "probable", and only with the requirement to disclose which customer was on which IP at which time. The rest of the case would have to go ahead as normal. Nobody would be found guilty of anything, they would obviously get their day(s) in court, and could move any legal action the like from there. But it is very hard for a copyright holder to move forward if they have to go through the entire process of proving a violation completely (in a legal sense) before a judge even considered to order the ISP to do anything. That by itself can take years, which is insufficient remedy for the copyright holder.
RD, please take your meds, that wasn't me posting. If you can't accept that other people might have an opinion opposite to yours, perhaps you should unplug your computer and get off the internet, because you are going to be disappointed very often.
No, but if I am in the process of giving away oranges and trying to sell something else, and you don't allow people to see something else, just the oranges, that has changed the business model, no?
RD, please, get bent. Take your anger out on your dog or something, I don't need to here from you about it.
What is ASCAP?
ASCAP is a membership association of more than 370,000 U.S. composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers of every kind of music. Through agreements with affiliated international societies, ASCAP also represents hundreds of thousands of music creators worldwide. ASCAP is the only U.S. performing rights organization created and controlled by composers, songwriters and music publishers, with a Board of Directors elected by and from the membership.
ASCAP protects the rights of its members by licensing and distributing royalties for the non-dramatic public performances of their copyrighted works. ASCAP's licensees encompass all who want to perform copyrighted music publicly. ASCAP makes giving and obtaining permission to perform music simple for both creators and users of music.
A performance rights collection agency, who works for the writers, performers, and publishers to collect various usage rights fees.
Of course, you could have just done like me and gone to their website to get that definition.
DH, I will get back to you later on this, but ASCAP is the publisher and has certain rights and responsiblities. An artist signs their work to them, etc.
It is complicated, but I think that they may be required to name the songwriter as a co-plantiff, or as a listed interested party. It's why I would want to see the original lawsuit, as the way the plantiffs are listed would be important.
I have read that explaination, but it is somewhat incomplete.
Does Boxee store a copy of the video later for playback? Does Boxee help the user to collect videos and display them again in the future without a connection to the server required? Does Boxee allow users to fast forward where the Hulu flash might not allow this to happen, etc?
As Hulu makes it's income on the numbers of views, unless a connection is made and a new video downloaded each time (with fresh ads), it would break the Hulu model. Even then, because they don't display the full hulu page and only display individual videos, they do change the hulu experience.
I wouldn't expect Boxee's site to address these issues. I also don't expect them to explain why a user has to register for free software that runs on their home PC, and then sign in for each use.
Their software cannot be used to browse anything except videos.
Their software does not present websites as published, but changes their presentation.
There is no indication on how boxee intends to monetize their website, but having users sign up is an indication that they value user information and contact.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One way you profit selling below cost is by selling other more profitable items with the below cost item. On aggregate, you make a profit.
There is also the question of locked money. If you have stock worth a certain amount, and the cost of money is 10%, if you have to hold onto something for a period of time, you lose money with it sitting. Retailing it more quickly at less than your cost of money is beneficial to the bottom line.(see Wal-mart, lower down)
Another would be if you have already sold enough widgets at a sufficient unit price to have covered your costs. Every sale after that would be 100% profit, even if it is below cost price.
Another would be a tied sale, where you sell a product below cost, but bind the buyer to also enter into a much more profitable agreement. Monthly gym memberships (or Extenze tablets) being examples of selling cheap (or for free) with a tied continued profitable sale.
One other way is bonus systems for restocking or ordering. If you have a bodega and you have a bunch of Cola that cost you $1 a bottle to stock, and your supplier comes in and offers you a whole bunch more cola at $0.50 a bottle, your aggregate cost (on equal stock) would be 75 cents, so you would sell all the cola that cost you $1 and 89 cents and still make a "profit" on inventory.
Finally, you get into the more complex concept of "the turn". Walmart is pretty famous for this. Walmart only keeps products for a certain amount of time, and will do almost anything to move the products out and replace them with better selling products. Even if they are losing some money on a current sale, they are in fact profiting in the long run by freeing up the floor space for more profitable items. Walmart doesn't always make a profit on each sale, but they make money over the year by turning the stock more often and restocking into more profitable items that will sell quickly.
There are plenty of examples, in car rental and airlines. Airlines often sell tickets under "cost", because an empty seat is lost money. That under cost ticket is often offset by more profitable seats on the plane, plus the yield difference when the lower seats are sold and prices move up.
I could go on, but I think most of those are reasonable, without cracking a book or looking anything up online.
On the post: USTR Insists Gov't Isn't Keeping ACTA Secret
Re: Re: Re: ACTA
WHAT has copyright to do with this treaty? And if its SO necessary, why wasnt it included as a main point before now? And why all the secrecy? Arent those who govern us supposed to INCLUDE us?
I don't KNOW at ALL. I am NOT sure WHAT you ARE trying TO ask ME.
Seriously, the government doesn't include you (specifically or generally) in everything they do. You aren't aware of all that is said in security meetings, you aren't privy to everything discussed in cabinet, and you aren't privy to everything discussed in a treaty negotiation.
Rather than hopping up and down and getting all ramped up about something you have no information about, why not save your energy for the point that the treaty is revealed and sent to congress for approval? If you really don't like it, make a stink when it is time to stink. Right now you are just like a shark eating chum that other people are throwing out there, but there is nothing in the water to really bite. Save your energy for when it might actually matter.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re:
I am a big believer in the artists (music and movies, example), not just the big names in front but all the little guys (and girls) in the back that actually make is possible. both industries require a fairly high number of people to make it all work, and work well, and work all over the world.
I am also a big believer that you need a little bit of "lubrication" to make the wheels turn. That is the investment money that is put out there to allow artists to write and record new material, to afford good studios, great producers, maybe to buy some great songs to sing, etc. That money doesn't just come out of the sky, it comes with a price attached to it.
I don't think anyone at all is saying "you can't do it that way", but I think many of them are objecting because they are getting dragged into it without any desire to be there. If I was a professional songwriter who makes my living off of points on an album, I would be very upset if my work was put all over the internet for free, effectively cutting away my livelihood. That shouldn't be anyone else choice except those people who hold the rights.
It is important to separate out "new business models" from "rampant piracy". Mike's model seems to be "bend over and use the lube", which is a horrible way to accept fate.
I also object because much of what is presented here is like talking about making all beef hot dogs without discussing how you go from a live cow to a hot dog in a bun. It would be really nice if we could just get the cow to magically jump into the tubes and become a hot dog right there, but reality is that there are feed lots, transport, slaughter houses, butchers, grinding, and a whole bunch of other things that happen in between. What I get from Techdirt is "here is a picture of a cow, here is a picture of a hot dog, now go do it yourself!". Ignoring all that happens in the middle (and all the people required, and all the costs that happen) is pretty misleading.
Yes, I compared the music business to making hot dogs (or sausages, but I didn't want to discuss pork on this blog). Both of them are messy processes with lots of grinding and blood, but the end results are generally pretty good. More mustard please!
So the problem is that it is easy to dismiss the **aa's and "the industry" as all bad and ugly, because they aren't people (except that the courts just ruled they are, but that is for another day). It is hard to hate on people. It is hard to hate on the song writer who loses their living, or the session musician who can no longer get paid, or the bands that instead of getting an advance and a big break will be forever flogging t-shirts at their beer money shows, working McJobs to make ends meet. Those are people getting hurt in the process, who didn't want any of this to happen.
Yes, "think about the poor people". It makes a difference.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Are you going to go spank that naughty judge who called it stealing? Are you going to insult Trent Reznor who called it stealing?
You have something you are not suppose to have, you have paid for, and shouldn't have in your possession. How did you get it? "Oh, it just materialized." No, really, you obtained it illegally, right? Grandma would call it stealing.
plenty of business models that don't require copyright are working quite well in the industry.
Earth to bootstrap control, Mike is quoting himself. Always good to take opinion and add some opinion on top. We get to the same place, almost every one of those "business models" starts with "and here is someone really famous", who can afford to not make a living writing and recording music.
This thread is almost a classic already. Doesn't it make you wonder when more and more people are calling your ideas out as smoke and mirrors?
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
Re: Re: Re: Blatant attempt to justify Big Media behavior
How ever will you forgive me? Do you need me to kick your dog for you or something?
Remember: "Tracks 4 and 8 published by Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP)."
Have a nice day!
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am saying that the legal system needs an expedient method to allow copyright holders to be able to react to infringement in a timely manner. There needs to be a short and simple way (1 business day) for a court to be able to issue an order to an ISP to turn over customer information, so that they can be served properly and the legal case can move forward.
There is no "Judge Jury and Executioner", just the ability to get the right party on the line for the violation.
Essentially, the standard for obtaining the information from the ISP should be "probable", and only with the requirement to disclose which customer was on which IP at which time. The rest of the case would have to go ahead as normal. Nobody would be found guilty of anything, they would obviously get their day(s) in court, and could move any legal action the like from there. But it is very hard for a copyright holder to move forward if they have to go through the entire process of proving a violation completely (in a legal sense) before a judge even considered to order the ISP to do anything. That by itself can take years, which is insufficient remedy for the copyright holder.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Theft and infringement has the same results: Someone has what they didn't pay for, and the owners have one less potential sale."
They are the same. Thanks for playing misquote me.
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.discogs.com/Bruce-Springsteen-And-The-E-Street-Band-Magic-Tour-Highlights/releas e/1414852
"Tracks 4 and 8 published by Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP)."
or maybe:
http://songwritershalloffame.org/songs/detailed/C179
On the post: USTR Insists Gov't Isn't Keeping ACTA Secret
Re: ACTA
On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep going.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
Re: Blatant attempt to justify Big Media behavior
What is ASCAP?
ASCAP is a membership association of more than 370,000 U.S. composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers of every kind of music. Through agreements with affiliated international societies, ASCAP also represents hundreds of thousands of music creators worldwide. ASCAP is the only U.S. performing rights organization created and controlled by composers, songwriters and music publishers, with a Board of Directors elected by and from the membership.
ASCAP protects the rights of its members by licensing and distributing royalties for the non-dramatic public performances of their copyrighted works. ASCAP's licensees encompass all who want to perform copyrighted music publicly. ASCAP makes giving and obtaining permission to perform music simple for both creators and users of music.
A performance rights collection agency, who works for the writers, performers, and publishers to collect various usage rights fees.
Of course, you could have just done like me and gone to their website to get that definition.
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
Re: Re:
It is complicated, but I think that they may be required to name the songwriter as a co-plantiff, or as a listed interested party. It's why I would want to see the original lawsuit, as the way the plantiffs are listed would be important.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re:
Does Boxee store a copy of the video later for playback? Does Boxee help the user to collect videos and display them again in the future without a connection to the server required? Does Boxee allow users to fast forward where the Hulu flash might not allow this to happen, etc?
As Hulu makes it's income on the numbers of views, unless a connection is made and a new video downloaded each time (with fresh ads), it would break the Hulu model. Even then, because they don't display the full hulu page and only display individual videos, they do change the hulu experience.
I wouldn't expect Boxee's site to address these issues. I also don't expect them to explain why a user has to register for free software that runs on their home PC, and then sign in for each use.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have to sign up to use their product.
They are setting up some sort of payment system.
Their software cannot be used to browse anything except videos.
Their software does not present websites as published, but changes their presentation.
There is no indication on how boxee intends to monetize their website, but having users sign up is an indication that they value user information and contact.
Next >>