Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there more?
RealDense, take all your arguments and reverse them.
Do we know Hulu did it?
It is pretty safe to say that aliens from another planet had something to do with it, or for that matter, the video getting sold on a porn site or out of the back of a car at a strip club.
The point is we don't know where the money was made, Hulu may have nothing to do with it. Without knowing, the story is incomplete and everything about it is assumptions and guesses, not facts.
Mike will of course use this story as proof that "indie film makes can give away their product and make money doing it", but the story doesn't not show cause and effect.
Come on RealDense, thing about it... I know you can do it! Logical thought and reasoning is a GOOD thing. You should try them sometime.
The logo is a duplication of the dodge logo. It isn't "close", it isn't a "rendition", it's a 100% copy, just without the word "DODGE" at the bottom.
Ignore the trademark violation for a second, you have a very clear copyright violation. You don't even have to go any further. Your "will anyone confuse a school with a car company" rant is meaningless, because in copyright, it doesn't matter. The artwork is a duplicate, no modifications at all.
On the trademark side, it is easy to see where someone might imply that Dodge supports the school, or approves of the school, etc. Dodge has no interest in this school, and doesn't approve of it.
Plenty of new phones and gadgets that got major media coverage. I seem to remember Techdirt not just having ads, but just about being skinned not once but twice.
Plenty of companies coming out of the recession period attmepting to buy business at the year end, when people are typically spending. That includes in the B2B area, where all companies are working to set their 2010 budgets.
Q4 may be more about companies who didn't advertise in the previous quarters and kept their ad dollars to make the most impact at a given time.
You don't know, and I don't know. We can guess, but all they are are guesses.
I have to shake my head. If this doesn't register on you are a copyright violation and a trademark violation, I doubt anything will.
How much more obvious does it have to be? Would you have been more convinced if they changed them name of the school to "Dodge High School" or perhaps named all of their sports teams after dodge products?
For a supposedly smart guy, you seem to ask some pretty dumb questions at times.
I think that whatever benefit Dominoes does for themselves, they also indirectly do for Papa Johns. By naming a competitor directly, they admit that there is competition, and re-enforce their tagline. Even as they attempt to mock it, they are giving their competition top of mind awareness.
Mike, I would think you would be against this, because it is using your old Steisand Effect to put Papa John in front of even more people. Good or bad, mentioning the name puts them on the map, and starts the whole sequence.
It is an incredibly hard piece of marketing to try to stand yourself on top of another product, especially one that uses the "puffery" to good effect.
Three words: DVD "region coding".
Try to import a "foreign" film, and then tell me with a straight face that the corporate media megaliths are interested in getting artistic works "know outside of the region".
You might be right if movies never got released outside of the region. Plenty of movies get released region to region. Yes, it is in part about the money that can be earned rather than pure are, but those considerations are put in the top before the initial investment is made in the product (movie, music, etc).
If would be more of an issue if everything was done in a common language. It is not. The market for movies from India in the world isn't very large, but the market in their own country is solid. However, many of the best movies are released quietly all over the world for fans to enjoy.
Note in music that there are no restrictions. Music has always been an international game, not just a local or regional game. Even playing regionally "takes money to make money", and that made money is really just there to pay off the investment and maybe have the money to make the next record. International is even harder, needing contacts and systems all over the world so that a small band from "yourtown, USA" can get enough exposure worldwide that they can tour 365 days a year and have full houses to play to.
All of the cases you see are people who have been caught sharing files, not specifically downloading. Thomas and Tenenbaum are both sharers, example.
The only people who are getting in trouble for downloading are people who are downloading from the honeypot sites. Even then, they are mostly dealing with the infamous "pre-settlement" letters. I don't think any of those have actually gone to court.
Also as noted, people who download also tend to share (reseeding) which means that once they download something, you just ask for a piece back, and you have them as a downloader as well, which is the real key offense in the US, the one with the most power in the courts.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there more?
So, in the long run, how he did it is irrelevant
Actually, isn't that the most relevant in an ongoing discussion about business models? That would degrade this website down to being something between stories about santa claus or the tooth fairy, because we are suppose to just believe in the magic.
I want to know what works, in part because Mike is all about "what works" - yet here we are with something that worked, but we don't know what the something is.
It makes me think that the part that worked may have had little or nothing to do with Hulu.
Holy crap RealDense, that sounds exactly like you, except you also add things that aren't in my posts and claim they are there, and imply all sorts of things I never say.
Nope, it's an indication of more media moving to "sale" or "rent" rather than "gimmie gimmie gimmie". The return to direct monetization of content is a key in the process of making this all work.
Even if it never comes completely to people paying for all that they see, it helps to support the value of ad supported "free" stuff. It isn't a sudden end to the wild west, but it presents options.
Plus I have to say that it give the whole "but it's not available at a reasonable price" crowd something to think about, one less justification for making torrent searches your first source for content.
Sergio, the issue isn't the download, it's the upload.
The minimum by law if I remember correctly is $750. Treble damages, and you get $2250.
This is important I think for the labels, because they know they have little to lose at this point. A judge would pretty much have to ignore the amounts set in law to lower the amounts. Ms Thomas has been caught, convicted, and there is no doubt about the issue, she did it. We are only talking dollars here. At this point, the copyright holders have little to lose, everything to gain.
Ms thomas? Well, let's just say that IMHO, she appears to be getting some pretty horrible legal advice, she should have long since settled and called it a day. If you are a file trader, people like her and Joel Tenenbaum are the worst legal cases possible, because they will continue to beat their heads against the wall until this ends up in the Supreme Court, where they are pretty much both assured of a loss. The only questions that would be there would be amounts, and the Supreme Court isn't likely to turn amounts set in law upside down without some very, very good reason, and there appears to be none forthcoming.
Basically, Ms Thomas knows she did it, has been found guilty of doing it, and the courts set her with the lowest possible award under the circumstances, yet this goes on. She hasn't accepted any other offer from the copyright holders for amounts signicantly lower than that (at one point, I remember reports of an offer in the $5000 range total for everything). I don't things are going to get better for her from here.
Joe, I don't think you understand what I mean about "using their service".
Google logs everything, and retains records of everything. Every search, every movement, every use of their site. If you have the google toolbar (and many people do) and sign into Gmail, you remain signed in as you surf, and all your movements are tracked. They have a profile of your computer (all of the things revealed in the http headers about your machine) and even when you are logged off, there is often enough information combined for them to know what ads you have seen on sites they serve ads on (they get all the info, and more).
They are now down to 9 MONTHS from the original 18 MONTHS before.
They log. They log everything. Every contact, every touch, every interface, every use. They log.
Oh yeah, don't forget the bonus round: The cache every website they can get to, and any website that exposes information such as poster information and IP address could be matched up to other data they have logged to pretty much piece you together out of "series of tubes".
Actually, it's a problem for acts that want to get known outside of their region of the world.
If the record label's aren't making the money, they won't be investing the money. It takes money to make money, and record labels are pretty much the only group consistantly putting cash on the counter to make all of this go. Do they make a pot full of money when things go well? Yup. But they lose their asses often enough as well on acts that don't turn out, that don't catch the public's ear... you know, those that don't "CwF" through their actual product, music and image.
It's easy to pee on the record labels, but it's hard as hell to live without their investments.
All I can say is this: record labels routinely put huge amounts of money on the line to get new acts the exposure they need to get their music out, to be well known, and to make a pile of money over careers.
They also put tons of money on the line for acts that never really recoup the cash, never really break, and pretty much everyone loses money on the deal.
Artists today outside of label deals seem to spend much of their time begging for money, running online flea markets, or doing other "non music" things to be able to afford to record songs that might never see the light of day.
While the labels may be motivated by money, they spend money to make money, and they spent the type of money bands and artists want to be able to have a shot at the "big times". There is nobody else out there consistantly putting huge amounts of money on the line to make things go, and that investment is definitely good for artists.
As a side note, with the arrival of the Ipad, Apple already appears set to be "selling" TV shows for $1 an episode. Perhaps this is another indication that the wild west phase is passing...
1- "anti-mike" is an accurate reflection of my views. Mike looks at every violation, every breach of contract, heck possibly every murder as a change to "get some good publicity". I look at it exactly the opposite way, when you give an inch today, you will give an inch tomorrow, and soon enough you are in the other team's endzone wondering why some ugly mascot is in your face.
2 - I am offended by people who can't tell the difference between trolling and just having an opposite opinion. Mike posts up stuff that is so easy to pick apart, he uses all sorts of wiggle room words, gives himself safe exits, and uses plenty of techniques to try to bootstrap his ideas into "facty things".
As I always say, it is better to debate ideas than people. I have posted under other names in the past before i created The Anti Mike, I haven't posted as any of them since. It was funny as heck posting as some of the people here who don't log in (like yourself) and having the morons like RD nodding their virtual heads along with me. That is when I realized that it wasn't about the ideas, it was about who was bringing them.
So, too bad, so sad, but that is the way it is.
Oh, I considered changing my name to Anti-RD, but everyone here is anti-moron, so I wouldn't really stand out. :)
Okay there RealDense, shall we talk about your views?
Oh wait, your only view is a closeup of Mike's butt, because I know exactly where your nose is.
If I am a shill, then you are just a shallow yes-man who can't come up with his own ideas, and just swallows whatever is handed to you (and based on the position of your nose, I can pretty much figure out what you are eating all the time).
Too bad you can't think for yourself. You have a lot of passion, but it is just for the waste material you are gorging yourself on.
On the post: Indie Filmmaker Hits It Big With Free Film Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there more?
Do we know Hulu did it?
It is pretty safe to say that aliens from another planet had something to do with it, or for that matter, the video getting sold on a porn site or out of the back of a car at a strip club.
The point is we don't know where the money was made, Hulu may have nothing to do with it. Without knowing, the story is incomplete and everything about it is assumptions and guesses, not facts.
Mike will of course use this story as proof that "indie film makes can give away their product and make money doing it", but the story doesn't not show cause and effect.
Come on RealDense, thing about it... I know you can do it! Logical thought and reasoning is a GOOD thing. You should try them sometime.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The logo is a duplication of the dodge logo. It isn't "close", it isn't a "rendition", it's a 100% copy, just without the word "DODGE" at the bottom.
Ignore the trademark violation for a second, you have a very clear copyright violation. You don't even have to go any further. Your "will anyone confuse a school with a car company" rant is meaningless, because in copyright, it doesn't matter. The artwork is a duplicate, no modifications at all.
On the trademark side, it is easy to see where someone might imply that Dodge supports the school, or approves of the school, etc. Dodge has no interest in this school, and doesn't approve of it.
How hard is that to understand?
On the post: Don't Buy Into Any Reports On Q4 Online Ad Revenue Just Yet
Christmas. Always a good time for advertising.
Plenty of new phones and gadgets that got major media coverage. I seem to remember Techdirt not just having ads, but just about being skinned not once but twice.
Plenty of companies coming out of the recession period attmepting to buy business at the year end, when people are typically spending. That includes in the B2B area, where all companies are working to set their 2010 budgets.
Q4 may be more about companies who didn't advertise in the previous quarters and kept their ad dollars to make the most impact at a given time.
You don't know, and I don't know. We can guess, but all they are are guesses.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?
Re: Re:
How much more obvious does it have to be? Would you have been more convinced if they changed them name of the school to "Dodge High School" or perhaps named all of their sports teams after dodge products?
For a supposedly smart guy, you seem to ask some pretty dumb questions at times.
On the post: EMI Tries Fake Word Of Mouth Campaign To Promote Ok Go
They are only doing it wrong if it doesn't work. You don't know that yet.
On the post: Domino's Turns A Loss In A Lawsuit It Wasn't Involved In Into A TV Commercial
Mike, I would think you would be against this, because it is using your old Steisand Effect to put Papa John in front of even more people. Good or bad, mentioning the name puts them on the map, and starts the whole sequence.
It is an incredibly hard piece of marketing to try to stand yourself on top of another product, especially one that uses the "puffery" to good effect.
On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leveling the earnings curve?
Try to import a "foreign" film, and then tell me with a straight face that the corporate media megaliths are interested in getting artistic works "know outside of the region".
You might be right if movies never got released outside of the region. Plenty of movies get released region to region. Yes, it is in part about the money that can be earned rather than pure are, but those considerations are put in the top before the initial investment is made in the product (movie, music, etc).
If would be more of an issue if everything was done in a common language. It is not. The market for movies from India in the world isn't very large, but the market in their own country is solid. However, many of the best movies are released quietly all over the world for fans to enjoy.
Note in music that there are no restrictions. Music has always been an international game, not just a local or regional game. Even playing regionally "takes money to make money", and that made money is really just there to pay off the investment and maybe have the money to make the next record. International is even harder, needing contacts and systems all over the world so that a small band from "yourtown, USA" can get enough exposure worldwide that they can tour 365 days a year and have full houses to play to.
It's all in how you look at things, I think!
On the post: Record Labels Basically Admit That Statutory Damages Out Of Proportion As They Ask For Third Jammie Thomas Trial
Re:
The only people who are getting in trouble for downloading are people who are downloading from the honeypot sites. Even then, they are mostly dealing with the infamous "pre-settlement" letters. I don't think any of those have actually gone to court.
Also as noted, people who download also tend to share (reseeding) which means that once they download something, you just ask for a piece back, and you have them as a downloader as well, which is the real key offense in the US, the one with the most power in the courts.
On the post: Author Claims $9.99 Is Not A 'Real Price' For Books
Re: Re:
On the post: Indie Filmmaker Hits It Big With Free Film Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there more?
Actually, isn't that the most relevant in an ongoing discussion about business models? That would degrade this website down to being something between stories about santa claus or the tooth fairy, because we are suppose to just believe in the magic.
I want to know what works, in part because Mike is all about "what works" - yet here we are with something that worked, but we don't know what the something is.
It makes me think that the part that worked may have had little or nothing to do with Hulu.
On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving Forward.
RealDense, a real classic.
On the post: Author Claims $9.99 Is Not A 'Real Price' For Books
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
The customer is always right... for the short run.
On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask TAM
Even if it never comes completely to people paying for all that they see, it helps to support the value of ad supported "free" stuff. It isn't a sudden end to the wild west, but it presents options.
Plus I have to say that it give the whole "but it's not available at a reasonable price" crowd something to think about, one less justification for making torrent searches your first source for content.
On the post: Record Labels Basically Admit That Statutory Damages Out Of Proportion As They Ask For Third Jammie Thomas Trial
Re: I don't understand
The minimum by law if I remember correctly is $750. Treble damages, and you get $2250.
This is important I think for the labels, because they know they have little to lose at this point. A judge would pretty much have to ignore the amounts set in law to lower the amounts. Ms Thomas has been caught, convicted, and there is no doubt about the issue, she did it. We are only talking dollars here. At this point, the copyright holders have little to lose, everything to gain.
Ms thomas? Well, let's just say that IMHO, she appears to be getting some pretty horrible legal advice, she should have long since settled and called it a day. If you are a file trader, people like her and Joel Tenenbaum are the worst legal cases possible, because they will continue to beat their heads against the wall until this ends up in the Supreme Court, where they are pretty much both assured of a loss. The only questions that would be there would be amounts, and the Supreme Court isn't likely to turn amounts set in law upside down without some very, very good reason, and there appears to be none forthcoming.
Basically, Ms Thomas knows she did it, has been found guilty of doing it, and the courts set her with the lowest possible award under the circumstances, yet this goes on. She hasn't accepted any other offer from the copyright holders for amounts signicantly lower than that (at one point, I remember reports of an offer in the $5000 range total for everything). I don't things are going to get better for her from here.
On the post: Missed Use Case? Google Buzz Reveals Who You Chat With The Most To Everyone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google logs everything, and retains records of everything. Every search, every movement, every use of their site. If you have the google toolbar (and many people do) and sign into Gmail, you remain signed in as you surf, and all your movements are tracked. They have a profile of your computer (all of the things revealed in the http headers about your machine) and even when you are logged off, there is often enough information combined for them to know what ads you have seen on sites they serve ads on (they get all the info, and more).
Data retention? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10036090-83.html
They are now down to 9 MONTHS from the original 18 MONTHS before.
They log. They log everything. Every contact, every touch, every interface, every use. They log.
Oh yeah, don't forget the bonus round: The cache every website they can get to, and any website that exposes information such as poster information and IP address could be matched up to other data they have logged to pretty much piece you together out of "series of tubes".
The borg.
On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?
Re: Re: Leveling the earnings curve?
If the record label's aren't making the money, they won't be investing the money. It takes money to make money, and record labels are pretty much the only group consistantly putting cash on the counter to make all of this go. Do they make a pot full of money when things go well? Yup. But they lose their asses often enough as well on acts that don't turn out, that don't catch the public's ear... you know, those that don't "CwF" through their actual product, music and image.
It's easy to pee on the record labels, but it's hard as hell to live without their investments.
On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask TAM
They also put tons of money on the line for acts that never really recoup the cash, never really break, and pretty much everyone loses money on the deal.
Artists today outside of label deals seem to spend much of their time begging for money, running online flea markets, or doing other "non music" things to be able to afford to record songs that might never see the light of day.
While the labels may be motivated by money, they spend money to make money, and they spent the type of money bands and artists want to be able to have a shot at the "big times". There is nobody else out there consistantly putting huge amounts of money on the line to make things go, and that investment is definitely good for artists.
As a side note, with the arrival of the Ipad, Apple already appears set to be "selling" TV shows for $1 an episode. Perhaps this is another indication that the wild west phase is passing...
On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?
Re: Re: Trollin Trollin Trollin RAWHIDE!
1- "anti-mike" is an accurate reflection of my views. Mike looks at every violation, every breach of contract, heck possibly every murder as a change to "get some good publicity". I look at it exactly the opposite way, when you give an inch today, you will give an inch tomorrow, and soon enough you are in the other team's endzone wondering why some ugly mascot is in your face.
2 - I am offended by people who can't tell the difference between trolling and just having an opposite opinion. Mike posts up stuff that is so easy to pick apart, he uses all sorts of wiggle room words, gives himself safe exits, and uses plenty of techniques to try to bootstrap his ideas into "facty things".
As I always say, it is better to debate ideas than people. I have posted under other names in the past before i created The Anti Mike, I haven't posted as any of them since. It was funny as heck posting as some of the people here who don't log in (like yourself) and having the morons like RD nodding their virtual heads along with me. That is when I realized that it wasn't about the ideas, it was about who was bringing them.
So, too bad, so sad, but that is the way it is.
Oh, I considered changing my name to Anti-RD, but everyone here is anti-moron, so I wouldn't really stand out. :)
On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask TAM
Oh wait, your only view is a closeup of Mike's butt, because I know exactly where your nose is.
If I am a shill, then you are just a shallow yes-man who can't come up with his own ideas, and just swallows whatever is handed to you (and based on the position of your nose, I can pretty much figure out what you are eating all the time).
Too bad you can't think for yourself. You have a lot of passion, but it is just for the waste material you are gorging yourself on.
On the post: Blockbuster Blames 'Piracy' Rather Than Bad Strategy For Bankruptcy In Portugal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
enjoy.
Next >>