Re: ebook DRM doesn't prevent lost sales, it causes them
I'm still trying to figure out why people buy ebook readers from them... Sure, they seem like the best ones on the market but the hassle of losing your books and notes is just too much for me.
I have a smartphone that I can download with and work in a tablet fashion. I can read books in full color. Sure, the battery is a problem, but that's the only one at the moment which is easily solvable by charging it.
When you factor in the convenience of one smartphone to an ebook reader that I have to worry about lost time and resources, the answer is obvious. If you have to set up a DRM system, you're basically trying to get me to rent your products. That's fine, but I can pay for the things I want to keep and the reader will never be one of them.
The monopoly is called copyright which lasts Death + 70 years, is held mostly by corporations, doesn't allow derivative works, doesn't allow the public to remix and create relevant content, doesn't want anything but more money and screws the artists, actors, and physical labor union types out of their jobs by giving them a paltry sum while the pipeline revenue is given to the director and main actors in most cases.
"Nothing is stopping you from making a movie and licensing it to any or all of the streaming services."
Except access to film techniques, writers of quality story lines, lack of focus in public education on business arrangements, more money given to the studio heads than writers to create independent works, and less minimal income projects that could free people up to pursue better interests than a minimum wage job that barely pays the bills.
"That's because they have knowledge and experience in such creations, and ventured capital up front as an investment in that content, believing it was desirable and would return its investment."
Wrong. The "knowledge" of the studio heads is in how to manipulate artists to sign rights away and give them everything for nothing in return. You get $5 million from Iron Man as an extra? Well, Robert Downey got $50 million as one of the main draws. Yet he also gets royalties and added stipulations while as an extra you have to find your next movie meal ticket.
The experience learned is in how to exploit your fellow man instead of creating movies for added benefit of society.
And the ventured capital? Not a good investment long term for most people. Even then, the Hollywood Accounting done gives a larger return on investment than the initial loan in hurting the public while giving them no copyrights, no way to remix or any options in how they want to see a movie.
There are new producers already coming out from the machinima makers to places like Blip TV.
If Netflix wanted to reach out to the indies, they have a LOT of options and could indeed do well in their financing of new content.
Personally, telling the studios to take a hike while promoting up and comers would really make Netflix more valuable and leave the studios looking lost in their efforts to fight piracy AND create a better alternative than Netflix.
But some people don't have a choice. They live in the worst areas and have had their lives uprooted and ruined for this guy's personal benefit. He wants to destroy people's lives just because they are in the way of his power grab.
That's what's most disturbing about his admission of ignoring their pleas for the sake of their suppression of civil rights.
" This move is designed to obliterate the competition, not by being better, but by abusing the monopoly position."
But a monopoly position is extremely fragile. Sure, these studios have a lot of money from various projects and act like financial bankers. But they can't control the public, which is why they're doomed to fail. Publishers are eventually uprooted by their own greed, which even Adam Smith recognized in his discussions in "Wealth of Nations".
The government's job is to protect the public and unfortunately, it's too corrupted to do so. The public is too weak to fight against the threats of a mergeance of corporations and state powers but it can mobilize to fight these issues and push back.
Eventually, I'm sure that copyright will be defeated, but getting to that process and slogging through it will be very difficult until people understand what it actually is they're fighting against (their civil liberties and freedom of choice).
This is the same guy responsible for breaking up the Occupy campus for "cleanliness" while taking a massive donation from Chase bank to support their interests.
Further, that surveillance program is funded by the very people that he is protecting: the rich and powerful.
So he is correct in saying that he wants less privacy for the people that are out of his jurisdiction. The problem is, that's everyone that isn't making millions a year.
Kind of hard to do that. I have the PDF of Square's costs and one of them that struck me was the cost for DRM and "protecting their assets" which was to the tune of billions of yen which made no sense. They have plenty of money and revenue but spent it on copyright protection and their prices for digital goods have been too high.
For whatever reason, they can't charge more money to get more out of the audience in the midst of a recession that's in its sixth year.
And that's the lesson that most publishers have to learn. The market has shrunk and has moved into the digital for cheaper than what they got on consoles.
They have taken manufacturing jobs overseas hurting American workers along with American productivity. They've charged the same prices for phones as anyone else. They tend to their flowered gardens of apps, hurting software developers. They work with the government to make sure that they keep cheap prices on overseas labor (Foxconn). Yet, the government isn't investigating them? Their monopolies?
Seriously?
Why do we just look the other way when the government isn't noticing the main problem?
This just seems like a book written from someone supporting "guild politics".
He wants to support a publisher access world where the only ones that control creation are the ones that have the means of production. Since copyright is a mercantilist tool to suppress innovation, he can't say that it benefits the old mercantile system where the record labels had the power to control content. Hut no matter how you look at this, it marks him as both a Luddite and a person ignorant of economics.
Well, great. If you think government repression for the 'common good' is so fantastic, go buy yourself a Rosetta Stone, learn Spanish, and go live under Chavez 2.0. Or Fidel. Or whatever socialist paradise floats your boat.
That has nothing to do with the argument presented so why don't you actually respond about the topic at hand instead of veering off into rhetorical territory?
And I'll stay in America as I see fit, thank you very much.
The journalism of today is atrocious since most of the reporters are used to being spoonfed stories from the rich and powerful.
For example, in terms of what a politician says, they want access. But when someone wants to give them a scoop, whether it's Ellseberg to McGovern during the Watergate scandal or Manning to the NYT now, they don't know what to do with it.
It says a lot when the best thing for people in power is just to maintain silence and it all blows over.
Maybe it's just me but I think the next step here is to pass this thing when no one's looking. Of course, we have an ineffective bicameral Congress and they know that the public is watching this closely. What I'm sure is about to happen in the next few months is that either Reid decides to pass this in a budget bill (like the Patriot Act) or there's a voice vote and this passes with no safeguards, no clear direction of authority, and an overall mess of bureacracy which allows even more loopholes instead of better security for the public in general.
Keeping a government official from being implicated for his own crimes.
Richard Nixon was the king of this from 1946 to 1973 with a TON of campaign maneuvers and sabotage that would have gotten him imprisoned were he not to become the president.
The government has NO right to secrecy unless they have already turned into a plutocratic republic.
The "secrets" they actually have tend to be about who is paying off whom, who's in who's back pocket and other issues like corruption and wrong doing. When these things come to light, do you really think the public isn't going to rebel? They've been wanting a government that is "of the people, by the people, for the people" not "of the rich, by the corporations, for the enslavement of the poor"
"He's just allowing more of the 'good' kind of speech. Yay!"
Like I said, you're partisan. You're convinced of ignoring that issue when it's another country but you'll use it against one you don't like. "Do as I say, not as I do"
I merely said that he's allowed the country to do better than the US with the rules and policies he's implemented and you want to throw that out of proportion.
" Another fancy word for stealing other people's stuff. And trying to justify it by saying that stealing people's stuff is a tenant of socialism doesn't do your argument any favors."
Nope. That's like saying copyright means you're engaging in theft. Excellent way to provide a Hollywood argument but you might want to look at what happens when "private property" is collected in the hands of a select few. Oh wait, no you don't. The 1929 depression along with the 2007 recession are stark reminders.
" I'm being so narrow-minded when I object to the government "allowing" some citizens to steal from others."
Thanks for admitting it when you don't want to understand the booms and busts of the capitalist system.
" The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration, and it was never constitutionally tested. If it had been, the Court would almost certainly have overturned it."
Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine was practiced until the Reagan administration decided on the argument that companies needed to be bigger for the good of the rest of society which makes absolutely no sense. But obviously, you didn't read much into the Powell Memo that was popular at the time in how to create a plutocratic republic.
"That would be unconstitutional. Hate speech is perfectly legal in America. The only thing things the FCC are legally empowered to prohibit are indecency and obscenity, and it can only prohibit those on the broadcast stations. When it comes to cable stations, premium channels, and the internet, they're powerless to do even that much."
They've gotten weaker over the years due to partisan battles but the FCC of the 70s had a lot more they could do to promote the public good. Nice try though.
Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
"There's more to a person than the D or R behind their name."
Let's test this, shall we?
What has the Republican party done for us in the past 40 years? They gave us a great austerity program that required removing tax brackets for the top 1% and less money in government revenue. They were influential in proposing tax cuts for the rich which allowed banksters to begin to make bad investments and pay them off. Now, their feudal mentality has allowed the US to falter on trying to invest in the nation.
But don't think that I enjoy the Democrats any more than the next person. They've had great budgets that would work to help the country get back on its feet but the President doesn't look to the Democrats for advice. Further, the corruption from Hollywood alienates the youth vote who is more than willing to move to other parties while the conservative vote is still stuck with Republicans.
For example, the most disturbing thing I'm reading about is how we've ignored extrajudicial and paramilitary killings that have occurred in greater numbers since Obama has been in office.
But let's get back to Republicans...
You have four major strains of conservative that is a part of the Republican party as one big force.
The multicultural conservatives are the ones that love law and order against minorities.
The Second would be the social conservatives. Your evangelicals are the ones that cause problems in terms of science like Akin and Ohio or Virginia where they look to eliminate rights instead of protect them.
Libertarians are the closest in ideology to the Democratic party but their fiscal conservatism serves as a large detriment. Fiscal conservatism implies austerity for the masses instead of recognizing that people need the government to spend money in times of crisis. Maybe if we taxed corporations more, we wouldn't need to take away popular public services which are sure to cause a revolt.
Neocons have the war mongering down pat but we've seen how their foreign policy is BS by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which went poorly and merely privatized the military.
If people actually paid attention to which one felt strongly about what issue and WHY these people are formed together with a tenuous bond on conservatism, you could lern which ones want which policies and get the nation moving again.
Sadly, with these conservatives in positions of power, they can do a lot of damage in ensuring that the US loses its place as one of the best nations for innovation with its feudal outlook.
You know, I hear a lot from publishers and authors along with directors and all of these top level people.
But I'd really love to hear what the students and the teachers have to say about being thrown under the bus for someone else deciding that they need to pay more money in access to information.
Can someone explain why a student should pay more tuition when America is already more expensive in regards to college tuition?
On the post: Tor Books UK Says Ditching DRM Showed No Increase In Piracy
Re: ebook DRM doesn't prevent lost sales, it causes them
I have a smartphone that I can download with and work in a tablet fashion. I can read books in full color. Sure, the battery is a problem, but that's the only one at the moment which is easily solvable by charging it.
When you factor in the convenience of one smartphone to an ebook reader that I have to worry about lost time and resources, the answer is obvious. If you have to set up a DRM system, you're basically trying to get me to rent your products. That's fine, but I can pay for the things I want to keep and the reader will never be one of them.
On the post: Warner Bros., MGM, Universal Collectively Pull Nearly 2,000 Films From Netflix To Further Fragment The Online Movie Market
Re: Re: Re:
The monopoly is called copyright which lasts Death + 70 years, is held mostly by corporations, doesn't allow derivative works, doesn't allow the public to remix and create relevant content, doesn't want anything but more money and screws the artists, actors, and physical labor union types out of their jobs by giving them a paltry sum while the pipeline revenue is given to the director and main actors in most cases.
"Nothing is stopping you from making a movie and licensing it to any or all of the streaming services."
Except access to film techniques, writers of quality story lines, lack of focus in public education on business arrangements, more money given to the studio heads than writers to create independent works, and less minimal income projects that could free people up to pursue better interests than a minimum wage job that barely pays the bills.
"That's because they have knowledge and experience in such creations, and ventured capital up front as an investment in that content, believing it was desirable and would return its investment."
Wrong. The "knowledge" of the studio heads is in how to manipulate artists to sign rights away and give them everything for nothing in return. You get $5 million from Iron Man as an extra? Well, Robert Downey got $50 million as one of the main draws. Yet he also gets royalties and added stipulations while as an extra you have to find your next movie meal ticket.
The experience learned is in how to exploit your fellow man instead of creating movies for added benefit of society.
And the ventured capital? Not a good investment long term for most people. Even then, the Hollywood Accounting done gives a larger return on investment than the initial loan in hurting the public while giving them no copyrights, no way to remix or any options in how they want to see a movie.
So please, spare the disingenuous arguments.
On the post: Warner Bros., MGM, Universal Collectively Pull Nearly 2,000 Films From Netflix To Further Fragment The Online Movie Market
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Netflix wanted to reach out to the indies, they have a LOT of options and could indeed do well in their financing of new content.
Personally, telling the studios to take a hike while promoting up and comers would really make Netflix more valuable and leave the studios looking lost in their efforts to fight piracy AND create a better alternative than Netflix.
On the post: NY Police Chief Ray Kelly Says The Boston Bombing Takes Privacy 'Off The Table'
But...
That's what's most disturbing about his admission of ignoring their pleas for the sake of their suppression of civil rights.
On the post: Warner Bros., MGM, Universal Collectively Pull Nearly 2,000 Films From Netflix To Further Fragment The Online Movie Market
Re:
But a monopoly position is extremely fragile. Sure, these studios have a lot of money from various projects and act like financial bankers. But they can't control the public, which is why they're doomed to fail. Publishers are eventually uprooted by their own greed, which even Adam Smith recognized in his discussions in "Wealth of Nations".
The government's job is to protect the public and unfortunately, it's too corrupted to do so. The public is too weak to fight against the threats of a mergeance of corporations and state powers but it can mobilize to fight these issues and push back.
Eventually, I'm sure that copyright will be defeated, but getting to that process and slogging through it will be very difficult until people understand what it actually is they're fighting against (their civil liberties and freedom of choice).
On the post: Warner Bros., MGM, Universal Collectively Pull Nearly 2,000 Films From Netflix To Further Fragment The Online Movie Market
???
On the post: NY Police Chief Ray Kelly Says The Boston Bombing Takes Privacy 'Off The Table'
Hold it...
Further, that surveillance program is funded by the very people that he is protecting: the rich and powerful.
So he is correct in saying that he wants less privacy for the people that are out of his jurisdiction. The problem is, that's everyone that isn't making millions a year.
On the post: According To MN State Auditors, Success In The Music Biz Means Signing With A Major Label; Not Touring
Re: Reality Reminder...
On the post: Attempt To Trigger Six Strikes Comes Up Empty
The problem
On the post: Greenheart Games Trolls Pirates With Altered Cracked Version Of Game Dev Tycoon
Re: Re: Re:
For whatever reason, they can't charge more money to get more out of the audience in the midst of a recession that's in its sixth year.
And that's the lesson that most publishers have to learn. The market has shrunk and has moved into the digital for cheaper than what they got on consoles.
On the post: ICE Starts Raiding Mobile Phone Repair Shops To Stop Repairs With Aftermarket Parts
Re:
They have taken manufacturing jobs overseas hurting American workers along with American productivity. They've charged the same prices for phones as anyone else. They tend to their flowered gardens of apps, hurting software developers. They work with the government to make sure that they keep cheap prices on overseas labor (Foxconn). Yet, the government isn't investigating them? Their monopolies?
Seriously?
Why do we just look the other way when the government isn't noticing the main problem?
On the post: Jaron Lanier And Gobbledygook Economics
One obvious question...
This just seems like a book written from someone supporting "guild politics".
He wants to support a publisher access world where the only ones that control creation are the ones that have the means of production. Since copyright is a mercantilist tool to suppress innovation, he can't say that it benefits the old mercantile system where the record labels had the power to control content. Hut no matter how you look at this, it marks him as both a Luddite and a person ignorant of economics.
On the post: Pirate Party Elected To Parliament In Iceland, First Pirate Party Victory In National Parliament
Gandhi
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That has nothing to do with the argument presented so why don't you actually respond about the topic at hand instead of veering off into rhetorical territory?
And I'll stay in America as I see fit, thank you very much.
On the post: How EA's 'Silent Treatment' Pushed The SimCity Story Into The Background
Journalism in general
For example, in terms of what a politician says, they want access. But when someone wants to give them a scoop, whether it's Ellseberg to McGovern during the Watergate scandal or Manning to the NYT now, they don't know what to do with it.
It says a lot when the best thing for people in power is just to maintain silence and it all blows over.
On the post: As Expected, Senate Has No Interest In CISPA; Planning Its Own Cybersecurity Bill Instead
The public is watching?
Maybe it's just me but I think the next step here is to pass this thing when no one's looking. Of course, we have an ineffective bicameral Congress and they know that the public is watching this closely. What I'm sure is about to happen in the next few months is that either Reid decides to pass this in a budget bill (like the Patriot Act) or there's a voice vote and this passes with no safeguards, no clear direction of authority, and an overall mess of bureacracy which allows even more loopholes instead of better security for the public in general.
On the post: Perspective: 1987 Panel On The Press, National Security, And Official State Secrets
Re:
Keeping a government official from being implicated for his own crimes.
Richard Nixon was the king of this from 1946 to 1973 with a TON of campaign maneuvers and sabotage that would have gotten him imprisoned were he not to become the president.
The government has NO right to secrecy unless they have already turned into a plutocratic republic.
The "secrets" they actually have tend to be about who is paying off whom, who's in who's back pocket and other issues like corruption and wrong doing. When these things come to light, do you really think the public isn't going to rebel? They've been wanting a government that is "of the people, by the people, for the people" not "of the rich, by the corporations, for the enslavement of the poor"
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, you're partisan. You're convinced of ignoring that issue when it's another country but you'll use it against one you don't like. "Do as I say, not as I do"
I merely said that he's allowed the country to do better than the US with the rules and policies he's implemented and you want to throw that out of proportion.
" Another fancy word for stealing other people's stuff. And trying to justify it by saying that stealing people's stuff is a tenant of socialism doesn't do your argument any favors."
Nope. That's like saying copyright means you're engaging in theft. Excellent way to provide a Hollywood argument but you might want to look at what happens when "private property" is collected in the hands of a select few. Oh wait, no you don't. The 1929 depression along with the 2007 recession are stark reminders.
" I'm being so narrow-minded when I object to the government "allowing" some citizens to steal from others."
Thanks for admitting it when you don't want to understand the booms and busts of the capitalist system.
" The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration, and it was never constitutionally tested. If it had been, the Court would almost certainly have overturned it."
Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine was practiced until the Reagan administration decided on the argument that companies needed to be bigger for the good of the rest of society which makes absolutely no sense. But obviously, you didn't read much into the Powell Memo that was popular at the time in how to create a plutocratic republic.
"That would be unconstitutional. Hate speech is perfectly legal in America. The only thing things the FCC are legally empowered to prohibit are indecency and obscenity, and it can only prohibit those on the broadcast stations. When it comes to cable stations, premium channels, and the internet, they're powerless to do even that much."
They've gotten weaker over the years due to partisan battles but the FCC of the 70s had a lot more they could do to promote the public good. Nice try though.
On the post: When Corruption Fails: Hollywood Has 'Turned Off The Critical Thinking Functions Of Many Democrats'
Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
Let's test this, shall we?
What has the Republican party done for us in the past 40 years? They gave us a great austerity program that required removing tax brackets for the top 1% and less money in government revenue. They were influential in proposing tax cuts for the rich which allowed banksters to begin to make bad investments and pay them off. Now, their feudal mentality has allowed the US to falter on trying to invest in the nation.
But don't think that I enjoy the Democrats any more than the next person. They've had great budgets that would work to help the country get back on its feet but the President doesn't look to the Democrats for advice. Further, the corruption from Hollywood alienates the youth vote who is more than willing to move to other parties while the conservative vote is still stuck with Republicans.
For example, the most disturbing thing I'm reading about is how we've ignored extrajudicial and paramilitary killings that have occurred in greater numbers since Obama has been in office.
But let's get back to Republicans...
You have four major strains of conservative that is a part of the Republican party as one big force.
The multicultural conservatives are the ones that love law and order against minorities.
The Second would be the social conservatives. Your evangelicals are the ones that cause problems in terms of science like Akin and Ohio or Virginia where they look to eliminate rights instead of protect them.
Libertarians are the closest in ideology to the Democratic party but their fiscal conservatism serves as a large detriment. Fiscal conservatism implies austerity for the masses instead of recognizing that people need the government to spend money in times of crisis. Maybe if we taxed corporations more, we wouldn't need to take away popular public services which are sure to cause a revolt.
Neocons have the war mongering down pat but we've seen how their foreign policy is BS by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which went poorly and merely privatized the military.
If people actually paid attention to which one felt strongly about what issue and WHY these people are formed together with a tenuous bond on conservatism, you could lern which ones want which policies and get the nation moving again.
Sadly, with these conservatives in positions of power, they can do a lot of damage in ensuring that the US loses its place as one of the best nations for innovation with its feudal outlook.
On the post: University Of California Sides With Journal Publishers Over Its Own Struggling Libraries
Students, meet bus
But I'd really love to hear what the students and the teachers have to say about being thrown under the bus for someone else deciding that they need to pay more money in access to information.
Can someone explain why a student should pay more tuition when America is already more expensive in regards to college tuition?
Next >>