The 2008 numbers are there, I can't seem to locate the 2004-2008 numbers (I know they are around). Net in 2008 is only a 3% increase in consumer spending, and that brought consumer spending back to the level or 2004 (if I remember correctly). There is a missing story through the guardian that had a nice link to those numbers and graphs, which comes back blank now).
Basically, the total music industry revenues in the swedish graph (including licensing and collecting) has remained flat over the 2000-2008 period as a net number. Recorded sales down, live sales up, collections up. Net consumer spending (less collections) actually flat or down.
I am not sure if Mike remembers where the UK numbers for 2004-2008 are, I can't seem to find them.
Raw traffic isn't anywhere near as good as filtered traffic. A user who searched for "Tom Cruise Dead" is good for your typical Tom cruise rumor story, but he isn't worth much yet. However, if you get him to click on "scientology secrets" on the Tom Cruise story page, then you have a nice filtered click that is of much higher value.
Taking raw Google traffic to an aggregator and then filtering it means less direct traffic to the content sites, but those people getting there are better filtered. Filter out the more useless bandwidth wasters (countries you don't want to deal with), offer the up some general redirections besides the stories, and filter it down.
Controlling the aggregator means that you could in theory limit the stories that are exposed to the user based on their Geo location, so Rhodes Island users might only see newspapers and TV stations in their areas, plus some national news sources, as opposed to getting 800 results and ending up clicking over to the Las Vegas Sun for news.
An aggregator that is better for the news companies involved might be a better result than Google.
Justice Cowdroy found iiNet users had infringed copyright by downloading films on BitTorrent, but he found that the number of infringers was far less than alleged by AFACT
I think this is the most interesting - the judge can see the infringing, but chooses to do nothing.
The "big offensive" against you is because you are no longer attempting any sane discussion, and are down to dismissive comments, name calling, and expecting me to act as some sort of spokesman for an industry I am not part of.
Sorry, but your comments for the most part of not on topic, and involve mostly attempting to bait me into a non-relevant discussion, or are a direct attempt to insult me or call me out as a fool.
So I don't tend to react to them, except to point on when you are doing so (such as you are doing now).
First, I have to say "you people" as you refer to them doesn't refer to me. I am not a movie or music producer, nor am I part of the MPAA, RIAA, or any of the (hated) *AAs.
you could sell a cdr a music to a 5 megabit user at cost of about 4-5 cents per download A WHOLE CDR
so 25 cents a movie sound ok. MY father always told me of business if he could make ten percent returns he'd be happy.
That would be fine, if you ignored the 100 million it took up front to produce the movie, and that a large number of the movies produced every year lose money.
Only looking at replication costs without looking at all the fixed costs up front is truly a fail.
It completely ignores the fact that the overall music industry has actually been growing as sales of recorded music have dropped.
Mike, actually, both the UK and Swedish numbers suggested that consumer spending as a whole remained flat for a long period of time, the dollars shifting from recorded to live music, but that not really any more money was spent. Further, neither of those two studies indicated if there was an increase in live attendance and live shows, or just a significant increase in ticket prices (as has been shown for acts such as Madonna and Bon Jovi).
AJ, I have not benefit or loss specifically in seeing Mike succeed or fail, except perhaps that some people will come away from this site with a more open view of the world rather than a more closed one.
When we look at any system (from copyright to the monetary system, from evolution to how the lineups work at the grocery store) you can always find some bad in them. Where I tend to comment against Mike's views is that he plays the game of looking very closely at one grain of sand on the beach, or pulls back way far and you can't hardly see the beach. Copyright, trademarks, and all that get abused all the time, but so does the tax system, speed limits, and heck, some people jump the turnstiles to get on the subway. We don't shut down the subway because of a free people jumping in and not paying, nor do we suddenly make the subway free (even if there is clear public demand for free transport).
So I don't compete against Mike in any way, I am not trying to be a guru, I haven't given a panel discussion of any sort in about 8 years (unrelated to anything discussed here, for another business), and Mike's success or failure won't change my life directly one iota.
This is a good place to try to shine some light into the dark corners, and I hope that I get a few people to think about their views a little more before committing to them. Then I have succeeded :)
Flame mode is a little in my nature, my father says I don't suffer fools very well (and I too am sometimes the fool).
My backstory isn't much to tell, except to say that I am not in the riaa or mpaa or any of their related companies, nor do I produce movies, music, or write books. I am however very interested in space where economics meets legal, and in particular how it intersects with the internet and the various business models being tried. Let's say that marketing is more or less what I do, and that does involve understanding business models from various industries, to see how they play out.
So far the only slam I have for you is that your name is too short, buy a couple of extra letters, okay?
Richard, I personally think the answer is both of those, which is why I think you are having a problem with it.
The number of people who reject copyright restrictions outright appears to be fairly small. I am talking about people who would take a picket sign and protest about it.
After them, there is a big soft middle, that goes anywhere from "almost ready to picket" to "just picking up free stuff while we can". These are the people who use torrents because they can, or would use an illegal satTV receiver because they think they can get away with it. If they didn't think they could get away with it, they wouldn't do it. They aren't morally for or against copyright, just for getting something for nothing, putting one over "on the man", as it were.
After that, there is a big group of people who don't know, don't care, and actually pay for the stuff they want to listen to or watch.
Finally, you have what people here would call copyright maximalists, those who would take up picket signs for copyright, would campaign for it, whatever.
The problem isn't the extremes at either end, as a change of laws won't change their behavior. The real target of any legal action or law change is those people in the soft middle, who will do what they can get away with, as long as they don't feel they will get caught. It's a bit of the old mob mentality, where people do things they normally would not do because of the encouragement of the mob around them and the safety it brings, and it's a big of what is socially acceptable at a given time. Laws are written generally to encourage the majority of people to follow them.
You can't have your cake and eat it. (Oh, I forgot, your a "rightsholder" you've been having your cake and eating it for years now and this is all about keeping on doing it...)
As a consumer, you need to understand that the music you get for 99 cents a song is at a much lower rate than what it costs to produce it. When you are personally willing to pay $250,000 for a band to produce and distribute a new studio recording, you can decide what happens. Until then, you should consider that you are getting a great deal paying pennies to get access to the material.
Do you think anyone would pay 300 million for a ticket to see Avatar? Nope. At $10 a ticket, it's a great deal, and can be done at that price in part because of copyright and all that it entails.
I do also have to ask Mike: Why suddenly on the big offensive against me? Did I strike a nerve somewhere? It seems that since Billboard called you out, you have been a little upset. Is there something you want to get off your chest?
I don't answer people who call me "industry shill" or somehow think I am some sort of spokesman for the music or movie industry. I am neither, nor do I work in either industry.
since Netflix can do unlimited videos for $9 a month and youtube can do it for ads, I'd guess costs are low.
In Youtube's case, there is absolutely no indication that they are even within shooting distance of being profitable, even with the amazing cost advantages of Google internal bandwidth prices and Google's distributed data center network. Netflix, as they are mixing business models together, may not give us any indication if online movie business is working, as they are offering it for the moment as a value added service as they work to position themselves in that market. Netflix is working hard to have hardware installs on DVD players and TVs that point to them, and in the long run, I am sure the online model will work out for them.
The questions will always remain the same: What rates are companies like this paying for content? That will define the true price point of the industry.
As for this Google test, I would say there are a bunch of things in play here. First, the 5 movies are not mainstream films, but rather entrants into the Sundance Films festival. The price wasn't cheap ($3.99 per movie), I didn't see a bunch of promotion, and the time frame was very short. I suspect Google is pleased with the results because they worked with unknown movies, with no real ad budget, and probably netted about $1 per viewing. That is a very good margin, and something that could likely be ramped up with increased volume and turned into a very profitable part of their business.
Since I have no idea what "relevant questions" you want me to answer, how can I answer them? So far the only thing I have seen you point at is something you can answer yourself by scanning through Techdirt (variations in numbers in surveys).
Again, I feel that you are attempting to bait me into an argument about personality rather than about issues, and I am having none of it. That is just stinky troll bait.
Mike, I never, ever, ever replied to myself. You are wrong.
Sorry, you fail.
As for the ACs, well, let's just say they write like RD, the attack like RD, and they USE THE POSTING STYLE of an aggravated RD, which is sort of what is telling.
I do appreciate Mike that you continue to allow them to post, even if their posts are entirely about attacking me, and not about discussing ideas.
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
Re: Re: Re: Where...
It's okay, my techdirt doghouse is large and spacious, the flatscreen TV with Directv is down the hall.
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
Re: Re: Re: Where...
The 2008 numbers are there, I can't seem to locate the 2004-2008 numbers (I know they are around). Net in 2008 is only a 3% increase in consumer spending, and that brought consumer spending back to the level or 2004 (if I remember correctly). There is a missing story through the guardian that had a nice link to those numbers and graphs, which comes back blank now).
For Sweden:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml
Basically, the total music industry revenues in the swedish graph (including licensing and collecting) has remained flat over the 2000-2008 period as a net number. Recorded sales down, live sales up, collections up. Net consumer spending (less collections) actually flat or down.
I am not sure if Mike remembers where the UK numbers for 2004-2008 are, I can't seem to find them.
On the post: Mark Cuban Tells Newspapers To Pull Out Of Google... As He Invests In Competitors?
Taking raw Google traffic to an aggregator and then filtering it means less direct traffic to the content sites, but those people getting there are better filtered. Filter out the more useless bandwidth wasters (countries you don't want to deal with), offer the up some general redirections besides the stories, and filter it down.
Controlling the aggregator means that you could in theory limit the stories that are exposed to the user based on their Geo location, so Rhodes Island users might only see newspapers and TV stations in their areas, plus some national news sources, as opposed to getting 800 results and ending up clicking over to the Las Vegas Sun for news.
An aggregator that is better for the news companies involved might be a better result than Google.
On the post: iiNet Wins! AFACT Has To Pay. Australian Court Says ISPs Not Responsible For Infringing Users
I think this is the most interesting - the judge can see the infringing, but chooses to do nothing.
I smell an appeal, if it is still possible.
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
Sorry, but your comments for the most part of not on topic, and involve mostly attempting to bait me into a non-relevant discussion, or are a direct attempt to insult me or call me out as a fool.
So I don't tend to react to them, except to point on when you are doing so (such as you are doing now).
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
On the post: Will The Recording Industry Pay For ISP Monitoring In The UK?
Re: proof it don't work
you could sell a cdr a music to a 5 megabit user at cost of about 4-5 cents per download A WHOLE CDR
so 25 cents a movie sound ok. MY father always told me of business if he could make ten percent returns he'd be happy.
That would be fine, if you ignored the 100 million it took up front to produce the movie, and that a large number of the movies produced every year lose money.
Only looking at replication costs without looking at all the fixed costs up front is truly a fail.
On the post: Will The Recording Industry Pay For ISP Monitoring In The UK?
So I think it is premature to make any assumptions about it.
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
Re: Where...
It completely ignores the fact that the overall music industry has actually been growing as sales of recorded music have dropped.
Mike, actually, both the UK and Swedish numbers suggested that consumer spending as a whole remained flat for a long period of time, the dollars shifting from recorded to live music, but that not really any more money was spent. Further, neither of those two studies indicated if there was an increase in live attendance and live shows, or just a significant increase in ticket prices (as has been shown for acts such as Madonna and Bon Jovi).
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
When we look at any system (from copyright to the monetary system, from evolution to how the lineups work at the grocery store) you can always find some bad in them. Where I tend to comment against Mike's views is that he plays the game of looking very closely at one grain of sand on the beach, or pulls back way far and you can't hardly see the beach. Copyright, trademarks, and all that get abused all the time, but so does the tax system, speed limits, and heck, some people jump the turnstiles to get on the subway. We don't shut down the subway because of a free people jumping in and not paying, nor do we suddenly make the subway free (even if there is clear public demand for free transport).
So I don't compete against Mike in any way, I am not trying to be a guru, I haven't given a panel discussion of any sort in about 8 years (unrelated to anything discussed here, for another business), and Mike's success or failure won't change my life directly one iota.
This is a good place to try to shine some light into the dark corners, and I hope that I get a few people to think about their views a little more before committing to them. Then I have succeeded :)
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
The Canadian numbers also vary greatly depending on the questions asked.
you can search techdirt and find them yourself. It's all out there.
have a nice day!
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
My backstory isn't much to tell, except to say that I am not in the riaa or mpaa or any of their related companies, nor do I produce movies, music, or write books. I am however very interested in space where economics meets legal, and in particular how it intersects with the internet and the various business models being tried. Let's say that marketing is more or less what I do, and that does involve understanding business models from various industries, to see how they play out.
So far the only slam I have for you is that your name is too short, buy a couple of extra letters, okay?
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: Re: Re: We, the People
The number of people who reject copyright restrictions outright appears to be fairly small. I am talking about people who would take a picket sign and protest about it.
After them, there is a big soft middle, that goes anywhere from "almost ready to picket" to "just picking up free stuff while we can". These are the people who use torrents because they can, or would use an illegal satTV receiver because they think they can get away with it. If they didn't think they could get away with it, they wouldn't do it. They aren't morally for or against copyright, just for getting something for nothing, putting one over "on the man", as it were.
After that, there is a big group of people who don't know, don't care, and actually pay for the stuff they want to listen to or watch.
Finally, you have what people here would call copyright maximalists, those who would take up picket signs for copyright, would campaign for it, whatever.
The problem isn't the extremes at either end, as a change of laws won't change their behavior. The real target of any legal action or law change is those people in the soft middle, who will do what they can get away with, as long as they don't feel they will get caught. It's a bit of the old mob mentality, where people do things they normally would not do because of the encouragement of the mob around them and the safety it brings, and it's a big of what is socially acceptable at a given time. Laws are written generally to encourage the majority of people to follow them.
You can't have your cake and eat it. (Oh, I forgot, your a "rightsholder" you've been having your cake and eating it for years now and this is all about keeping on doing it...)
As a consumer, you need to understand that the music you get for 99 cents a song is at a much lower rate than what it costs to produce it. When you are personally willing to pay $250,000 for a band to produce and distribute a new studio recording, you can decide what happens. Until then, you should consider that you are getting a great deal paying pennies to get access to the material.
Do you think anyone would pay 300 million for a ticket to see Avatar? Nope. At $10 a ticket, it's a great deal, and can be done at that price in part because of copyright and all that it entails.
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
I don't answer people who call me "industry shill" or somehow think I am some sort of spokesman for the music or movie industry. I am neither, nor do I work in either industry.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_en___CA350&h s=CX0&q=site%3Atechdirt.com+that+tammy!&btnG=Search&meta=&cts=1265203877021&aq=f &oq=
You don't have to be too smart to see a trend, do you?
Mike, please: expose my back story. you are the guy who claims he doesn't know how to reach me, yet you know my backstory? PLEASE!
On the post: Keith Urban Supports Unauthorized Downloaders... Except When He Doesn't
Re:
Heck, if they were getting his product for free, the record labels wouldn't have ponied up to make his records, once again leaving him just poor.
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
On the post: Google Discovers -- Again, Though No One Remembers -- That People Don't Like Paying For Video Online
Re:
In Youtube's case, there is absolutely no indication that they are even within shooting distance of being profitable, even with the amazing cost advantages of Google internal bandwidth prices and Google's distributed data center network. Netflix, as they are mixing business models together, may not give us any indication if online movie business is working, as they are offering it for the moment as a value added service as they work to position themselves in that market. Netflix is working hard to have hardware installs on DVD players and TVs that point to them, and in the long run, I am sure the online model will work out for them.
The questions will always remain the same: What rates are companies like this paying for content? That will define the true price point of the industry.
As for this Google test, I would say there are a bunch of things in play here. First, the 5 movies are not mainstream films, but rather entrants into the Sundance Films festival. The price wasn't cheap ($3.99 per movie), I didn't see a bunch of promotion, and the time frame was very short. I suspect Google is pleased with the results because they worked with unknown movies, with no real ad budget, and probably netted about $1 per viewing. That is a very good margin, and something that could likely be ramped up with increased volume and turned into a very profitable part of their business.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls
Again, I feel that you are attempting to bait me into an argument about personality rather than about issues, and I am having none of it. That is just stinky troll bait.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, you fail.
As for the ACs, well, let's just say they write like RD, the attack like RD, and they USE THE POSTING STYLE of an aggravated RD, which is sort of what is telling.
I do appreciate Mike that you continue to allow them to post, even if their posts are entirely about attacking me, and not about discussing ideas.
Next >>