Some people will switch to Bing because of exclusive content deals. Most will continue using Google and eventually forget about the sites that have opted out. 100% of the people won't do one or the other, so Google may lose a little bit of market share on certain searches, but the sites selling out are going to lose a lot more in traffic and mindshare. It's marginal loses and gains for the search engines, but massively stupid for the website.
It sounds like Microsoft's game unit has been talking with their search unit a bit too much. They seem to think since exclusive content works with video game consoles, it'll work with search engines. Silly Microsoft, tricks are for kids.
And News Corps. is just blowing more smoke threatening to do everything short of spontaneous combust to try to figure out how it can gain any semblance of the upper hand it used to command.
At least with the Daily Show, it's clear when they're telling it like it is, and when they're talking out of their ass. I guess it's pretty clear when the major news networks are talking out of their asses, too ... whenever they're airing.
The cost of a newspaper by the reader has NEVER even covered the cost of printing. So, they removed a MARGINAL REVENUE STREAM with the idea that increased readership will allow for MUCH HIGHER AD REVENUE.
It's a proven model that has worked for decades for free newspapers all over the world.
And quality readers are relative. You may be exchanging 20,000 middle class readers for 100,000 lower class readers ... but a credit card consolidation company is going to pay higher ad rates to reach those 100,000 working class people than the 20,000 original readers.
There is almost no paper anymore made from virgin forests. Almost all consumer and newsprint paper is made from trees from tree farms.
Most deforestation happening in the world is due to farming land, not paper production.
And from a business standpoint, well free newspapers have been a proven business model for at least 15 years with international free newspaper networks like The Metro, and local free newspapers in many major cities. It works.
The government more than makes up for the difference in savings in billing costs with general inefficiencies, corruption, and lack of accountability allowing the offering of sub-standard services without fear of free-market pressures.
Technically, the U.S. doesn't recognize dual citizenship after the age of 18. At 18, a choice is supposed to be made. Other countries don't have this restriction. So, she can tell the Americans she chooses her American citizenship, and then tell the Dutch she wants both. From the U.S. perspective she is a U.S. citizen, from the Dutch perspective she is a dual citizen.
At least that's how it was explained to me in government schools. And I've learned over the years that not very much of what I was told there has actually turned out to be true.
No, that's not true. There were millions of musicians before 1998 that didn't get paid a cent for making their music (or at least not a livable income). Being a musician and writing music guarantees no one an income, and never has. Traditionally, most musicians never could make a living strictly being a musician, and now there are more opportunities for monetization around music than ever before.
"Now, they won't pay for my music and worse yet, people keep saying I should sell out to t-shirt manufacturers and poster printers in order to make my living."
Except people ARE paying for music. People are paying for concerts. Companies are paying for advertising licensing. People are putting more money into the music industry than ever. Just that people don't care about CDs anymore, and charging for studio recordings (which are promotional material for live shows, not the end product) seems silly when music belongs to the culture and culture shouldn't be commodicized.
And you don't have to sell t-shirts, you have to sell YOURSELF. People can't pirate a concert or release a bootleg before the show's happened ... so there's your biggest money draw: live shows! Just like it has always been.
If you're a musician, you make your living selling experiences around music ... the shows, the memorabilia, the passion, the emotions, the feelings, the community. If you only want to record a song once in a studio and sell that a million times, then you're a songwriter and recording artist. A musician performs regularly for real people, and that's pirate-proof.
"Amusingly, the whole reason the RIAA kicked off its lawsuit strategy was based on similar thinking: that it was an "education" campaign that would convince people that there was "harm" done from file sharing. Of course, it didn't work."
What are you talking about?!? The RIAA's education campaign has been nothing but an overwhelming success. The RIAA has educated the public that there is real "harm" done from file sharing. There are have been countless lives "harmed" & ruined by file sharing.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset's life has been irreparably harmed by the RIAA's fight against file sharing. Thousands of struggling college kids have been harmed because Lars needs another beamer.
The RIAA's has educated the public a lot over the last 10 years. Mostly that it does the most "harm" to its own industry.
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt continues to excuse piracy away
"Of course, not just some, many movies are bad to terrible. But in the absence of piracy they would stand a better chance of recovering all or part of their money."
So the essence of your point is that piracy hurts BAD art?
Promise me that if I keep downloading movies, Uwe Boll will have to stop making them.
No, they ARE saying that independent booksellers won't be able to compete with the price war between Amazon & Wal-mart (click on the link and read the full letter). Whereas Wal-mart focuses on only the newest and best sellers, their selling books at $10 is going to affect the perceived value of a $25 book by a new writer at the indie bookstore.
The letter is defending the ability of independent booksellers and emerging writers to compete with the big chains in a price war over best sellers, citing books not carried or involved in the lower prices as the casualties along with independent bookstores.
The letter is entirely about saying that small bookstores and emerging writers can't compete in a marketplace driven by a Big Box price war and seeking the Dept. of Justice to intercede because if government is fixing prices then it's not illegal.
Hopefully *crosses fingers* the DoJ will at least see through the thin veil and toss the letter in the circular filing cabinet.
If all they were asking is "if well established authors are $10, what price is an unknown or emerging writer going to sell at?" Then the answer could be, I dunno, $10. But in all honesty, the true answer is: the price that the store sells the book at.
If you don't sign a contract, give money, get handed a phone, then the phone is yours regardless of what the person who is taking a loss WANTS to happen. And any restrictions placed on it are requests, not legal obligations.
If there's a contract in place that states that by receiving the merchandise you agree to "blah blah blah legalese" and then you SIGN that agreement, then you are bound by the agreement. Like in a auto lease agreement, the bank owns the car, you get to use it, but there's a contractual agreement signed by both parties that spells this out.
No agreement, then the phone is yours. Possession … 9/10ths and all.
Re: Isn't that the purpose of elected representatives?
What elected representatives do, and they're purpose is are not the same thing.
Purpose: It's their job to make laws based upon the interests of their citizen constituents.
Do: They ignore their citizen constituents when they can and make laws based upon the interests of the companies that supported their election campaign and current prostitute and/or prescription drug problems.
"So you think pranksters are so stupid they don't care, or so rich they don't have to ?."
Neither. They are smart and don't care. They are willing to pay in jail time or court fines to get their message out. It's cost of them to get their cause heard to as many people as possible. They can pay $10 million for a 30-second Super Bowl ad, or they can pay 9 months of their life or $100,000 fine or whatever to the court system: either way, more people hear what they have to say. It's the price you have to pay to get what you want.
"The familar stance of the denialist of the form "This is a special case because .""
How about this: the chilling effect only has an effect on those people who care more about the effect than the cause. If the effect is acceptable, then it's not going to be that chilling. The Yes Men obviously don't care about lawsuits, jail time, or fines, because they do outlandish publicity stunts all the time. So obviously, they aren't chilled very easily. And for any other group who wants their message heard no matter the outcome, it's not going to be chilling for them either. 100% of the population will not be victim to this "chilling effect", if it was, then the government's War on Drugs would actually be somewhat effective. It's not, so the chilling effect of spending years in jail for smoking pot is obviously not enough to deter tens of millions of adults from taking part every day. You're overestimating the true effect of this chilling.
"I thought it was obvious"
It would be if what you were saying actually held up to logic and empirical evidence.
On the post: Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users
Re: Users Go Where The Relevant Results Are!
On the post: Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users
And News Corps. is just blowing more smoke threatening to do everything short of spontaneous combust to try to figure out how it can gain any semblance of the upper hand it used to command.
On the post: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs?
Re:
On the post: In Going Free, London Evening Standard Doubles Circulation While Slashing Costs
Re:
It's a proven model that has worked for decades for free newspapers all over the world.
And quality readers are relative. You may be exchanging 20,000 middle class readers for 100,000 lower class readers ... but a credit card consolidation company is going to pay higher ad rates to reach those 100,000 working class people than the 20,000 original readers.
On the post: In Going Free, London Evening Standard Doubles Circulation While Slashing Costs
Re:
Most deforestation happening in the world is due to farming land, not paper production.
And from a business standpoint, well free newspapers have been a proven business model for at least 15 years with international free newspaper networks like The Metro, and local free newspapers in many major cities. It works.
On the post: In Going Free, London Evening Standard Doubles Circulation While Slashing Costs
Re:
On the post: It's The TSA, Not CSI: Actions Limited To Security, Not Crime Investigation
Re: Passports
At least that's how it was explained to me in government schools. And I've learned over the years that not very much of what I was told there has actually turned out to be true.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Wants More People To Know About OpenBitTorrent Tracker
Re: Re:
On the post: WIPO Director General Against Draconian Anti-Piracy Punishment... But For The Wrong Reasons
Re:
No, that's not true. There were millions of musicians before 1998 that didn't get paid a cent for making their music (or at least not a livable income). Being a musician and writing music guarantees no one an income, and never has. Traditionally, most musicians never could make a living strictly being a musician, and now there are more opportunities for monetization around music than ever before.
"Now, they won't pay for my music and worse yet, people keep saying I should sell out to t-shirt manufacturers and poster printers in order to make my living."
Except people ARE paying for music. People are paying for concerts. Companies are paying for advertising licensing. People are putting more money into the music industry than ever. Just that people don't care about CDs anymore, and charging for studio recordings (which are promotional material for live shows, not the end product) seems silly when music belongs to the culture and culture shouldn't be commodicized.
And you don't have to sell t-shirts, you have to sell YOURSELF. People can't pirate a concert or release a bootleg before the show's happened ... so there's your biggest money draw: live shows! Just like it has always been.
If you're a musician, you make your living selling experiences around music ... the shows, the memorabilia, the passion, the emotions, the feelings, the community. If you only want to record a song once in a studio and sell that a million times, then you're a songwriter and recording artist. A musician performs regularly for real people, and that's pirate-proof.
On the post: WIPO Director General Against Draconian Anti-Piracy Punishment... But For The Wrong Reasons
What are you talking about?!? The RIAA's education campaign has been nothing but an overwhelming success. The RIAA has educated the public that there is real "harm" done from file sharing. There are have been countless lives "harmed" & ruined by file sharing.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset's life has been irreparably harmed by the RIAA's fight against file sharing. Thousands of struggling college kids have been harmed because Lars needs another beamer.
The RIAA's has educated the public a lot over the last 10 years. Mostly that it does the most "harm" to its own industry.
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt continues to excuse piracy away
So the essence of your point is that piracy hurts BAD art?
Promise me that if I keep downloading movies, Uwe Boll will have to stop making them.
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
Re:
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
Re: Techdirt continues to excuse piracy away
Facts usually have to be true and verifiable. I challenge your "fact" and wish to see your evidence. Until such time, I will read that sentence as:
"It is one person's completely uneducated guess that people who downloaded it and watched will never spend a dime on it."
On the post: UK Music Critic: This Is The Golden Age For Music
Re: Re: Re: What Is Wrong With You People?!?
On the post: Brazil To Let Hackers Try To Crack E-Voting Terminals
Re: Hmmm
On the post: Booksellers Claiming That Competition And Lower Prices Are Bad For Consumers
Re:
The letter is defending the ability of independent booksellers and emerging writers to compete with the big chains in a price war over best sellers, citing books not carried or involved in the lower prices as the casualties along with independent bookstores.
The letter is entirely about saying that small bookstores and emerging writers can't compete in a marketplace driven by a Big Box price war and seeking the Dept. of Justice to intercede because if government is fixing prices then it's not illegal.
Hopefully *crosses fingers* the DoJ will at least see through the thin veil and toss the letter in the circular filing cabinet.
If all they were asking is "if well established authors are $10, what price is an unknown or emerging writer going to sell at?" Then the answer could be, I dunno, $10. But in all honesty, the true answer is: the price that the store sells the book at.
On the post: UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline
Re: Re:
touché
On the post: Why Do Some Politicians Want To Ban You From Putting New Software On A Prepaid Mobile Phone?
Re: Re: Would this stand up?
If there's a contract in place that states that by receiving the merchandise you agree to "blah blah blah legalese" and then you SIGN that agreement, then you are bound by the agreement. Like in a auto lease agreement, the bank owns the car, you get to use it, but there's a contractual agreement signed by both parties that spells this out.
No agreement, then the phone is yours. Possession … 9/10ths and all.
On the post: Why Do Some Politicians Want To Ban You From Putting New Software On A Prepaid Mobile Phone?
Re: Isn't that the purpose of elected representatives?
Purpose: It's their job to make laws based upon the interests of their citizen constituents.
Do: They ignore their citizen constituents when they can and make laws based upon the interests of the companies that supported their election campaign and current prostitute and/or prescription drug problems.
On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Sues Yes Men; Someone Just Gave Protestors A Lot More Attention
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither. They are smart and don't care. They are willing to pay in jail time or court fines to get their message out. It's cost of them to get their cause heard to as many people as possible. They can pay $10 million for a 30-second Super Bowl ad, or they can pay 9 months of their life or $100,000 fine or whatever to the court system: either way, more people hear what they have to say. It's the price you have to pay to get what you want.
"The familar stance of the denialist of the form "This is a special case because .""
How about this: the chilling effect only has an effect on those people who care more about the effect than the cause. If the effect is acceptable, then it's not going to be that chilling. The Yes Men obviously don't care about lawsuits, jail time, or fines, because they do outlandish publicity stunts all the time. So obviously, they aren't chilled very easily. And for any other group who wants their message heard no matter the outcome, it's not going to be chilling for them either. 100% of the population will not be victim to this "chilling effect", if it was, then the government's War on Drugs would actually be somewhat effective. It's not, so the chilling effect of spending years in jail for smoking pot is obviously not enough to deter tens of millions of adults from taking part every day. You're overestimating the true effect of this chilling.
"I thought it was obvious"
It would be if what you were saying actually held up to logic and empirical evidence.
Next >>