I have killed hundreds (in Warcraft, L4D2, Portal, etc.)
heh, newb :-) i can kill more than 200 in a single l4d2 campaign. i have killed thousands in l4d2 alone.
if you add in the rest of the valve properties, the grand theft auto franchise, and the littany of RPGs, MMOs, and FPSs i have played all the way back to doom3d and final fantasy... i would say i have probably killed hundreds of thousands of humans alone. if you add in monsters, aliens, zombies, and demons, i have probably killed millions of creatures since i picked up my first atari joystick.
While that may be true, I'm still concerned that the company who performs this copyright search on an orphan work (for example Google in the case of GoogleBooks) would become the new copyright holder for that work.
that is a concern, which is why a work that is declared orphaned should always become public domain, rather than a copyrighted work with a new owner.
What was proposed here was indeed a licence to right grab with little effort required to prove you've searched thoroughly... For a modern example... Orphan works also affect derivatives...
simple solution: don't re-assign copyright on orphaned works. if you get a work declared orphaned, then it's public domain. end of story.
getting orphaned works into the public domain is always good. legal machinations to hijack rights to works is always bad.
One of the big issues with UNIX code and copyright, is that a lot of the UNIX code base was wholesale pulled in from BSD years ago. Both Linux and system V pulled from BSD when building up their code.
my take on it was the reverse: that berkely unix (BSD) and system V (AT&T), while both based on earlier version 7 code from the 70's, had diverged enough through the 80's to be considered separate properties, hence the unix wars.
as a result, the BSD's of the world had to replace all of the old system V code and vice versa, yet had to maintain portability and interface standards, hence the POSIX standard. it's been my understanding that the GNU project was a direct result of the AT&T vs. BSD patent war and was intended to "drop in" to any unix, and eventually replace all proprietary unix. the GPL is what it is because of these unix vendor shenanigans.
the linux kernel was pretty late to the unix party and is considered to be a unix clone, rather than a variant.
i took SCO's essential issue to be that IBM donated code from AIX to the linux kernel. AIX is a variant of systemV, and according to SCO violated some sort of patent or copyright. later, SCO altered course slightly to state that linux does basically the same thing as SCO, especially on the PC, and that IBM violated it's system V licensing agreement by donating code to the linux kernel.
With the BSD method of development both systems are more the welcome to do as they have done. Pulling it into System V and making it proprietary, or pulling it into linux and then putting it under the GNU license. (Though I think some BSD people get pissed about making BSD code into GNU code.)
again, my take is the opposite: in the days of BSD and AT&T prior to the unix wars, source code was how software was delivered. this code wasn't "open" because source code at that time simply was not "closed". source code was just source code and it was hacked upon by corporate and university researchers alike as a matter of course.
indeed, my understanding is that unix didn't really become proprietary until workstation vendors like IBM, HP, DEC, and sun made unix a salable commodity. when unix was delivered to large shared systems, source code was merely a component of the proprietary hardware package.
it is my understanding that BSD didn't become "open source" until after it had become "closed source" in the hands of sun and DEC. BSD wasn't "closed" until the market shifted from in-house development and customization of systems to pre-packaged proprietary software in the 80's and 90's. this was when the various unix vendors began suing each other over providing similar functionality.
since the linux kernel came into the picture towards the end of this time (the early 90's), and the intel PC platform was generally not considered to be powerful enough for engineering at that time, i don't think much BSD code was available for PCs to be appropriated by the linux kernel project, except for maybe BSDi and it's involvement with walnut creek, freebsd and slackware.
However, part of an attorney's job is to help their clients see reality. No matter what an attorney says in court or in public, a lawyer needs to be honest with the client about the legal situation.
don't hang around with many lawyers do you?
all of an attorney's job is to amass billable hours. tenacity in the case of facts to the contrary is the surest way to amass billable hours.
its "overhyped" because you don't really hear about, you don't know about the real constant attacks, because your not going to be told about them
yes there are persistent threats to us government and military interests. yes these threats happen via computers and the internet. but these are not new threats. these are the same threats the US has faced since the revolutionary war. they just happen to be technological in nature in this particular incarnation.
people have always wanted unauthorized access to government and military information. this is nothing new.
What is so wrong with copyright? I don't mean copyright as currently practiced in America, but copyright in general?
that it gets abused to the point of becoming the current american practice. also, those who benefit from the current american practice i are doing their best to spread that practice to the rest of the world.
Its purpose is rather clearly defined in the US Constitution, and I believe its purpose is worthy. Promotion of content creation is a worthy objective, and if the monopoly on that content can provide it, what is the problem?
the problem is that the monopoly is not used to promote the progress, but as a cudgel to stifle free speech, fair use, innovation, culture, and in some cases, even privacy. that stuff is always way more important than revenue, and if creative types have to sacrifice some wealth to protect people's basic freedoms, then so be it.
Or would you rather create music that people like, give it away free, and have to hustle selling something else, or giving concerts? I would propose that the first way is easier and the second way is harder.
that's great, but the first way is guaranteed to fail with mathematical certainty, and the second way has a chance of succeeding. the first way is not grounded in reality and the second way is. profit in the entertainment industry is not, should not and will never be a guarantee.
If... a musician created an album that was wildly popular... However, the musician is not a very good show man. I come along... and I produce a fabulous show... the original musician can no longer gain enough audience... Will this musician be likely to try to produce music in the future?
a lot of copyright types often assume that once someone "takes" something, that it's gone forever. that if someone copies your stuff, you can't copy your own stuff back.
to render your current show obsolete, all the originator has to do is feature new original content. to me, that sounds like a real incentive to create more content.
how quickly can you put your tour together once you decide to do this guys music? how quickly could you put together a new show if the originator makes new stuff? the originator automatically has the "first mover" advantage because he gets first crack at original content. even if your shows are better, they will always be behind his in terms of originality.
plus, the originator can use your success with his old content to promote and endorse his new content.
so, if you are smart, you will pay the originator to write for you, so you get to bolster your showmanship with his first mover advantage.
also, without copyright, your awesome shows are fair game for the originator. assuming the real value is showmanship and not the quality of the content, the original artist can take what works from your show, and other popular shows, and incorporate it into his next series of concerts with new content that he/she created. you benefited from copying the originator, but he then benefits from copying you in return, and in the end, the best show makes the most money, again, assuming the value in mostly in showmanship which may not be the case.
or, the originator can connect with those who currently enjoy his concerts, and give them even more of what they want to see, leaving you to do your shows that appeal to your audience.
when there is no intellectual monopoly, there is nothing stopping brutal competition to deliver the absolute best product.
If a musician can have monopoly to hold concerts, why can't they have a monopoly to sell CDs?
everyone has a natural monopoly on their performances, because only they can perform as themselves. this doesn't automatically invalidate originality. you pay to watch a comedian perform, not to hear his jokes, but if that comedian only tells jokes you've heard before, it hinders the performance.
That is the constant flaw with your arguments. The record labels DO NOT have the same product. Even iTunes doesn't have the breadth of selection available on most file sharing networks.
i think AC has a point. file sharing networks do distribute the same products as the content industry. the fact that the number of offerings on file sharing networks eclipses what is available for authorized downloads supports that idea.
what AC fails to realize is that file sharing networks share what's popular, regardless of its origin. if the studios stop producing content, it won't affect file sharing in the least.
in fact, once major studio content is no longer available, file sharing will increase in value since that's the only way for consumers to get their hands on that legacy content.
whatever comes in to fill the void left by this theoretical studio collapse will also be distributed via file sharing. hopefully, for sustainability reasons, this new crop of producers knows how to leverage file sharing to their advantage since fighting file sharing is such a futile activity.
actually, when you calculate the costs of peoples time to do this, you know the cost isnt $500, but tens of thousands of dollars.
so they are lying about their costs? if so, why would they do that? why are they using the DISCO to promote and distribute it for free when they invested tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket?
these people are not going to give up their day jobs to do this for long, unless you want to accept the socialist concept that the state should pay time (welfare) so they can stay home and make movies.
how much would it really cost then? how much money would they need?
i don't think it's necessary to accept socialism and demand payment from the state. it could be something simple, like people do stuff because they want to. or that people make stuff because it's fun and want to share it.
how much do their day jobs pay? how much value is there in being able to make the things you want to make full time?
i can't speak for the VODO guys, but if i could make enough to pay the bills by having fun and making cool things, i would gladly sacrifice many luxuries to enable that pursuit.
it is that mikes entire concept of selling scarcity only works when people are flush and rich, not during normal times. scarcity, especially transient scarcities (such as concerts or meet and greets) are lost money.
go lurk the new kids on the block message boards and see how much money women have "lost" over the last three years attending their events.
people can do this when they are floating in cash, but when things get even marginally tight, all of this stuff goes out the windows.
if times are tough, maybe you should reduce expenses so you can lower prices.
that the entire music industry is suppose to "give away the infinite, sell the scarce" and the public cant afford the scarce pretty much sticks a fork in the business model. its done and disproven by events.
so we the world should just pretend that this superior way to promote and distribute content doesn't exist? good luck getting that genie back in the bottle.
it goes back to the reason why you sell recorded music for a reasonable price - because people could justify that, because they listen to the music all the time (and get value over and over again for their purchase).
that's a good idea, except for the fact that the going rate for recorded music is $0. other than that, though, it's a really good idea.
right. the problem is people are discovering that there is little value in paying enough to make up for the money being lost on the music sales side. mikes entire deal the last few years is that live ticket sales are making up for what is lost in recorded music sales.
that's your disconnect. people still pay for stuff, they just don't pay what they used to. that's a shift in the market. the 90's are over and they're not coming back, no matter how desperately you want them to.
if you want to continue in the content business, you have to be able to deliver a product that turns a profit at the going rate. the going rate is significantly lower than it used to be. to quote marsellus wallace from pulp fiction:
Now that's a hard motherfuckin' fact of life, but it's a fact of life your ass is gonna have to get realistic about.
if the going rate is X your production costs are Y, your profit is equal to X - Y.
if Y is greater than X, you can shake your fist at X all you want, but you should really focus on bringing Y down to a sustainable level if you want to continue in the entertainment business. if you can't fix Y, maybe you should go into something else.
that current large tours and cancelling out, shrinking, canceling dates, and so on is an indication that people are no longer willing to pay the price.
indeed. the market changed and the established players have to change with it or go under.
personally, i blame free music, which has in turn taught people that even performing music has little actual value.
you can blame whomever you want. that doesn't change the fact that music is free and people that want to make music for a living have to find new and creative ways to make money.
the temporary trend in ticket sales stops working when people realize they are paying way over the value for something, mostly to support other parts of the business being ripped apart by freeloaders.
people don't pay to support businesses. they pay for value. end of story. there are two golden tickets: 1) increase value or 2) reduce costs.
anytime something is overvalued, there is a market collapse. this happened when people realized that tech start-ups were overvalued, it happened again when people realized that real estate was overvalued, and it will happen again when people realize that intellectual property is overvalued.
but have no fear, people still buy technology even though the tech sector imploded, people still buy houses even though the housing market collapsed, presumably people will still be paying for entertainment once the entertainment market corrects itself.
that which doesn't kill file sharing only makes it stronger
...we were beginning to wonder, just how many "significant blows" does it take to make a difference?
file sharing doesn't just bounce back, it comes back with a vengeance. every time TPB gets knocked down, it stays down for less time, and the same is true for other sites as well.
with each raid file sharing gets more popular and more political. god forbid someone actually gets hurt or killed in all of this, the galvanizing effect could be unstoppable.
Yes, but so will salaries. Are you ready for it? probably not, you dont want to see your salary go from the multi million dollar range down to 100k a year or less.
that's the real issue. the legacy players see the problem like this:
i make millions dollars per year. tell me how am i supposed to keep making that much money giving stuff away for free?
the answer is easy. you can't. and to make matters worse, there are creators out there that would be overjoyed to make less than 100k per year making their entertainment products.
Dr. Amy Smith is a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, where she runs the Development Lab, or D-Lab, a lab organized around simple and cheap engineering solutions for the developing world.
Among the rules of thumb she offers for building in that environment is this: “If you want something to be 10 times cheaper, take out 90% of the materials.” Making media is like that now except, for “materials”, substitute “labor.”
compare that to this article about the drama surrounding the screen writers for the new "A Team" movie:
The pic comes out Friday following almost 10 years in development, millions of dollars in script costs, all for a movie version of a forgotten TV show that 20th Century Fox already is predicting to reporters may not gross more in its opening weekend than the recent 4th installment of the Die Hard franchise. Not since examples like Sister Act and Armegeddon and G.I. Joe have so many screenwriters labored so much to produce so little...
...What wasn't to the writers' liking was an executive so arrogant that on several occasions he actually "ran the script through his own typewriter," one scribe tells me. "I'm not kidding. He wrote pages." And another source confirms to me, "he was rewriting stuff personally." Still another tells me: "He micromanages scripts (down to insulting writers about grammar, which he’s often wrong about), he rewrites scripts himself in violation of every guild rule, and along with fancying himself a screenwriter, he considers himself a story genius – without realizing that most of ideas are clichés he comes up with are all the latest clichés from the movie he saw last weekend."
so you have an industry with high labor costs, thanks to its elaborate system of guilds, that is now facing competition from content creators with potentially zero labor costs. oh, and the finished product of this exorbitant labor is often a product that stinks.
the issue isn't a business model problem, it's a product problem. the product they want to sell simply costs too much to sell for the going rate.
On the post: Google Tries To Make It Easy For Anyone To Create Android Apps
Re: Re: Re:
PIN number
IP protocol
IRC chat
NIC card
On the post: Will Arnold Schwarzenegger Also Ban Kids From Riding Terminator 2 Theme Park Ride?
Re: I am a mass murderer...
heh, newb :-) i can kill more than 200 in a single l4d2 campaign. i have killed thousands in l4d2 alone.
if you add in the rest of the valve properties, the grand theft auto franchise, and the littany of RPGs, MMOs, and FPSs i have played all the way back to doom3d and final fantasy... i would say i have probably killed hundreds of thousands of humans alone. if you add in monsters, aliens, zombies, and demons, i have probably killed millions of creatures since i picked up my first atari joystick.
On the post: How Big An Issue Are Orphan Works?
Re: Public Domain?
that is a concern, which is why a work that is declared orphaned should always become public domain, rather than a copyrighted work with a new owner.
On the post: How Big An Issue Are Orphan Works?
Re: Don't go down this road
simple solution: don't re-assign copyright on orphaned works. if you get a work declared orphaned, then it's public domain. end of story.
getting orphaned works into the public domain is always good. legal machinations to hijack rights to works is always bad.
On the post: Google Tries To Make It Easy For Anyone To Create Android Apps
Re:
glad i am not the only one that irks.
the one that drives me absolutely nuts is "ATM machine."
On the post: Google Tries To Make It Easy For Anyone To Create Android Apps
Re:
then don't have the app call 911. have it call someone who won't fine you.
On the post: Supposed 'Proof' Of SCO's Infringement Claims Against Linux Seem Lacking
Re: UNIX code
my take on it was the reverse: that berkely unix (BSD) and system V (AT&T), while both based on earlier version 7 code from the 70's, had diverged enough through the 80's to be considered separate properties, hence the unix wars.
as a result, the BSD's of the world had to replace all of the old system V code and vice versa, yet had to maintain portability and interface standards, hence the POSIX standard. it's been my understanding that the GNU project was a direct result of the AT&T vs. BSD patent war and was intended to "drop in" to any unix, and eventually replace all proprietary unix. the GPL is what it is because of these unix vendor shenanigans.
the linux kernel was pretty late to the unix party and is considered to be a unix clone, rather than a variant.
i took SCO's essential issue to be that IBM donated code from AIX to the linux kernel. AIX is a variant of systemV, and according to SCO violated some sort of patent or copyright. later, SCO altered course slightly to state that linux does basically the same thing as SCO, especially on the PC, and that IBM violated it's system V licensing agreement by donating code to the linux kernel.
With the BSD method of development both systems are more the welcome to do as they have done. Pulling it into System V and making it proprietary, or pulling it into linux and then putting it under the GNU license. (Though I think some BSD people get pissed about making BSD code into GNU code.)
again, my take is the opposite: in the days of BSD and AT&T prior to the unix wars, source code was how software was delivered. this code wasn't "open" because source code at that time simply was not "closed". source code was just source code and it was hacked upon by corporate and university researchers alike as a matter of course.
indeed, my understanding is that unix didn't really become proprietary until workstation vendors like IBM, HP, DEC, and sun made unix a salable commodity. when unix was delivered to large shared systems, source code was merely a component of the proprietary hardware package.
it is my understanding that BSD didn't become "open source" until after it had become "closed source" in the hands of sun and DEC. BSD wasn't "closed" until the market shifted from in-house development and customization of systems to pre-packaged proprietary software in the 80's and 90's. this was when the various unix vendors began suing each other over providing similar functionality.
since the linux kernel came into the picture towards the end of this time (the early 90's), and the intel PC platform was generally not considered to be powerful enough for engineering at that time, i don't think much BSD code was available for PCs to be appropriated by the linux kernel project, except for maybe BSDi and it's involvement with walnut creek, freebsd and slackware.
On the post: Supposed 'Proof' Of SCO's Infringement Claims Against Linux Seem Lacking
Re: Tenacity in the face of facts to the contrary
don't hang around with many lawyers do you?
all of an attorney's job is to amass billable hours. tenacity in the case of facts to the contrary is the surest way to amass billable hours.
On the post: Brazil's Copyright Reform Proposal: Penalties For Hindering Fair Use Or The Public Domain
Re: Re:
that's just what a socialist would say.
On the post: Schneier Picks Apart Cyberwar Hype
Re:
yes there are persistent threats to us government and military interests. yes these threats happen via computers and the internet. but these are not new threats. these are the same threats the US has faced since the revolutionary war. they just happen to be technological in nature in this particular incarnation.
people have always wanted unauthorized access to government and military information. this is nothing new.
On the post: 'Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts
Re: Re:
On the post: The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
Re: Echo chamber
that it gets abused to the point of becoming the current american practice. also, those who benefit from the current american practice i are doing their best to spread that practice to the rest of the world.
Its purpose is rather clearly defined in the US Constitution, and I believe its purpose is worthy. Promotion of content creation is a worthy objective, and if the monopoly on that content can provide it, what is the problem?
the problem is that the monopoly is not used to promote the progress, but as a cudgel to stifle free speech, fair use, innovation, culture, and in some cases, even privacy. that stuff is always way more important than revenue, and if creative types have to sacrifice some wealth to protect people's basic freedoms, then so be it.
Or would you rather create music that people like, give it away free, and have to hustle selling something else, or giving concerts? I would propose that the first way is easier and the second way is harder.
that's great, but the first way is guaranteed to fail with mathematical certainty, and the second way has a chance of succeeding. the first way is not grounded in reality and the second way is. profit in the entertainment industry is not, should not and will never be a guarantee.
If... a musician created an album that was wildly popular... However, the musician is not a very good show man. I come along... and I produce a fabulous show... the original musician can no longer gain enough audience... Will this musician be likely to try to produce music in the future?
a lot of copyright types often assume that once someone "takes" something, that it's gone forever. that if someone copies your stuff, you can't copy your own stuff back.
to render your current show obsolete, all the originator has to do is feature new original content. to me, that sounds like a real incentive to create more content.
how quickly can you put your tour together once you decide to do this guys music? how quickly could you put together a new show if the originator makes new stuff? the originator automatically has the "first mover" advantage because he gets first crack at original content. even if your shows are better, they will always be behind his in terms of originality.
plus, the originator can use your success with his old content to promote and endorse his new content.
so, if you are smart, you will pay the originator to write for you, so you get to bolster your showmanship with his first mover advantage.
also, without copyright, your awesome shows are fair game for the originator. assuming the real value is showmanship and not the quality of the content, the original artist can take what works from your show, and other popular shows, and incorporate it into his next series of concerts with new content that he/she created. you benefited from copying the originator, but he then benefits from copying you in return, and in the end, the best show makes the most money, again, assuming the value in mostly in showmanship which may not be the case.
or, the originator can connect with those who currently enjoy his concerts, and give them even more of what they want to see, leaving you to do your shows that appeal to your audience.
when there is no intellectual monopoly, there is nothing stopping brutal competition to deliver the absolute best product.
If a musician can have monopoly to hold concerts, why can't they have a monopoly to sell CDs?
everyone has a natural monopoly on their performances, because only they can perform as themselves. this doesn't automatically invalidate originality. you pay to watch a comedian perform, not to hear his jokes, but if that comedian only tells jokes you've heard before, it hinders the performance.
On the post: The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
Re: Re: Re: Re:
i think AC has a point. file sharing networks do distribute the same products as the content industry. the fact that the number of offerings on file sharing networks eclipses what is available for authorized downloads supports that idea.
what AC fails to realize is that file sharing networks share what's popular, regardless of its origin. if the studios stop producing content, it won't affect file sharing in the least.
in fact, once major studio content is no longer available, file sharing will increase in value since that's the only way for consumers to get their hands on that legacy content.
whatever comes in to fill the void left by this theoretical studio collapse will also be distributed via file sharing. hopefully, for sustainability reasons, this new crop of producers knows how to leverage file sharing to their advantage since fighting file sharing is such a futile activity.
On the post: The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
Re: Re: Re: Re:
so they are lying about their costs? if so, why would they do that? why are they using the DISCO to promote and distribute it for free when they invested tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket?
these people are not going to give up their day jobs to do this for long, unless you want to accept the socialist concept that the state should pay time (welfare) so they can stay home and make movies.
how much would it really cost then? how much money would they need?
i don't think it's necessary to accept socialism and demand payment from the state. it could be something simple, like people do stuff because they want to. or that people make stuff because it's fun and want to share it.
how much do their day jobs pay? how much value is there in being able to make the things you want to make full time?
i can't speak for the VODO guys, but if i could make enough to pay the bills by having fun and making cool things, i would gladly sacrifice many luxuries to enable that pursuit.
On the post: The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
go lurk the new kids on the block message boards and see how much money women have "lost" over the last three years attending their events.
people can do this when they are floating in cash, but when things get even marginally tight, all of this stuff goes out the windows.
if times are tough, maybe you should reduce expenses so you can lower prices.
that the entire music industry is suppose to "give away the infinite, sell the scarce" and the public cant afford the scarce pretty much sticks a fork in the business model. its done and disproven by events.
so we the world should just pretend that this superior way to promote and distribute content doesn't exist? good luck getting that genie back in the bottle.
it goes back to the reason why you sell recorded music for a reasonable price - because people could justify that, because they listen to the music all the time (and get value over and over again for their purchase).
that's a good idea, except for the fact that the going rate for recorded music is $0. other than that, though, it's a really good idea.
On the post: The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that's your disconnect. people still pay for stuff, they just don't pay what they used to. that's a shift in the market. the 90's are over and they're not coming back, no matter how desperately you want them to.
if you want to continue in the content business, you have to be able to deliver a product that turns a profit at the going rate. the going rate is significantly lower than it used to be. to quote marsellus wallace from pulp fiction:
Now that's a hard motherfuckin' fact of life, but it's a fact of life your ass is gonna have to get realistic about.
if the going rate is X your production costs are Y, your profit is equal to X - Y.
if Y is greater than X, you can shake your fist at X all you want, but you should really focus on bringing Y down to a sustainable level if you want to continue in the entertainment business. if you can't fix Y, maybe you should go into something else.
that current large tours and cancelling out, shrinking, canceling dates, and so on is an indication that people are no longer willing to pay the price.
indeed. the market changed and the established players have to change with it or go under.
personally, i blame free music, which has in turn taught people that even performing music has little actual value.
you can blame whomever you want. that doesn't change the fact that music is free and people that want to make music for a living have to find new and creative ways to make money.
the temporary trend in ticket sales stops working when people realize they are paying way over the value for something, mostly to support other parts of the business being ripped apart by freeloaders.
people don't pay to support businesses. they pay for value. end of story. there are two golden tickets: 1) increase value or 2) reduce costs.
anytime something is overvalued, there is a market collapse. this happened when people realized that tech start-ups were overvalued, it happened again when people realized that real estate was overvalued, and it will happen again when people realize that intellectual property is overvalued.
but have no fear, people still buy technology even though the tech sector imploded, people still buy houses even though the housing market collapsed, presumably people will still be paying for entertainment once the entertainment market corrects itself.
On the post: How Many 'Significant Blows' Against File Sharing Will It Take For File Sharing To Actually Decrease?
Re: I hate to be the party pooper, but...
it doesn't matter. it can't be stopped.
right or wrong, it is going to happen and it's time for the content industry to wake up to that fact.
On the post: How Many 'Significant Blows' Against File Sharing Will It Take For File Sharing To Actually Decrease?
that which doesn't kill file sharing only makes it stronger
file sharing doesn't just bounce back, it comes back with a vengeance. every time TPB gets knocked down, it stays down for less time, and the same is true for other sites as well.
with each raid file sharing gets more popular and more political. god forbid someone actually gets hurt or killed in all of this, the galvanizing effect could be unstoppable.
On the post: The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
Re:
that's the real issue. the legacy players see the problem like this:
i make millions dollars per year. tell me how am i supposed to keep making that much money giving stuff away for free?
the answer is easy. you can't. and to make matters worse, there are creators out there that would be overjoyed to make less than 100k per year making their entertainment products.
it reminds me of clay shirky's collapse of complex business models:
Dr. Amy Smith is a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, where she runs the Development Lab, or D-Lab, a lab organized around simple and cheap engineering solutions for the developing world.
Among the rules of thumb she offers for building in that environment is this: “If you want something to be 10 times cheaper, take out 90% of the materials.” Making media is like that now except, for “materials”, substitute “labor.”
compare that to this article about the drama surrounding the screen writers for the new "A Team" movie:
The pic comes out Friday following almost 10 years in development, millions of dollars in script costs, all for a movie version of a forgotten TV show that 20th Century Fox already is predicting to reporters may not gross more in its opening weekend than the recent 4th installment of the Die Hard franchise. Not since examples like Sister Act and Armegeddon and G.I. Joe have so many screenwriters labored so much to produce so little...
...What wasn't to the writers' liking was an executive so arrogant that on several occasions he actually "ran the script through his own typewriter," one scribe tells me. "I'm not kidding. He wrote pages." And another source confirms to me, "he was rewriting stuff personally." Still another tells me: "He micromanages scripts (down to insulting writers about grammar, which he’s often wrong about), he rewrites scripts himself in violation of every guild rule, and along with fancying himself a screenwriter, he considers himself a story genius – without realizing that most of ideas are clichés he comes up with are all the latest clichés from the movie he saw last weekend."
so you have an industry with high labor costs, thanks to its elaborate system of guilds, that is now facing competition from content creators with potentially zero labor costs. oh, and the finished product of this exorbitant labor is often a product that stinks.
the issue isn't a business model problem, it's a product problem. the product they want to sell simply costs too much to sell for the going rate.
On the post: Hurt Locker Still Shared Widely Online; Wonder Why Producers Aren't Issuing Takedowns?
Re:
it was ok. greenzone was better.
Next >>