A number of years ago (>15), Comcast offered a special "five-pack" of premium programming, only one channel of which I wanted, the (then terrific) SciFi Channel. I asked about getting just that channel and was told "No." Since the one channel was the ONLY thing I wanted to pay money for anyway, I canceled my cable. I have since torn down the cable which they tacked to my soffit, since it had gotten very saggy and ugly. I have since ignored all of the tree-spam they send me offering "really wonderful programming."
What the TV moguls don't understand is that once you drive away your audience, you're not likely to get them back.
I can understand that absolutely. When the Amazon-Publishers War broke out, I had a very large collection of purchased ebooks (I'm adding the emphasis because it's relevant), and frequently bought entire book series as "stocking up" on future reading. My collection included thousand separate pieces of fiction of all lengths from short stories to David Weber-length anvils.
Then the war broke out, and an ebook I'd pre-ordered for $8 was yanked from my supplier and never returned there. It showed up on Amazon and B&N, though, at $12. To be fair, I got my pre-order money back, but the short-sighted greed evidenced by the publisher's behavior rather soured me on the Big Names.
So what were my coping mechanisms?
1. I buy occasional stuff from the Big Names if it's something I really want to read badly enough to put up with giving them money for it.
2. My major purchased book suppliers these days are Baen and Harlequin. I'm a long-time Baen fan, and they've got reasonable prices, good stuff, and DRM-free. Harlequin's got reasonable prices, good stuff, and DRM that doesn't lock me into having to read the books on any given ebook platform. If it sounds like an odd combination of tastes, convenience plays a part. Also, they don't attempt to make me their financial bitch in the prison sense.
3. With the exceptions named in item 2, I never pre-order books anymore. Period. Paper or electronic. EVER.
4. And finally, although the quality varies all over the place, I finally convinced myself to start browsing friendly little shops in New Providence, Tortuga, and Port Royal.
Actually, the situation is (somewhat) predictable. The cell phone companies don't have to outrun the bear. They just have to outrun the slowest company.
Actually, a hunting season for lawyers has been proposed, subject to some strict rules to make the hunt "fair" for some value of fair.
NEW REGULATIONS FOR THE HUNTING OF LAWYERS
Government Department of Fish and "WildLife" Sec. 1200
1. Any person with a valid hunting license may harvest attorneys.
2. Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of currency as bait is prohibited.
3. Killing of attorneys with a vehicle is prohibited. If accidentally struck, remove dead attorney to roadside and proceed to nearest car wash.
4. It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a snow machine, helicopter, or aircraft.
5. It shall be unlawful to shout "whiplash", "ambulance", or "free Perrier" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.
6. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW dealerships.
7. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, whorehouses, health spas, gay bars, ambulances, or hospitals.
8. If an attorney is elected to government office, it shall be a felony to hunt, "entrap", or possess it.
9. Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for rabies, and vermin.
10. It shall be illegal for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drugdealer, pimp, female legal clerk, sheep, accident victim, bookie, or taxaccountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.
BAG LIMITS (Maximum number of catches allowed per hunting season)
1. Yellow Bellied Sidewinder... (2)
2. Two-faced Tort Feasor... (1)
3. Back-stabbing Divorce Litigator... (4)
4. Small-breasted Ball Buster... (3) (Female only)
5. Big-mouthed Pub Gut... (2)
6. Honest Attorney... (0) (On the Endangered Species List) (Illegal to hunt)
7. Cut-throat... (2)
8. Back-stabbing Whiner... (2)
9. Brown-nosed Judge Kisser... (2)
10. Silver-tongued Drug Defender... ($100 BOUNTY)
Just remember, litigation is a lawyer's rice bowl. If crappy patents didn't get approved, there'd be a lot of starving IP lawyers, and we can't have that, can we?
There's a story I picked up about product marketing that's relevant here. There was a product that should have been an enormous hit with older people, and it wasn't selling very well. Somebody actually went out and watched the shelves in markets. They discovered that the product was generally placed very low on shelves. This led to the discovery that older people did NOT like having to bend to get the product, because they were frequently "butt-brushed" by other, impatient, shoppers trying to get by them while they were retrieving their intended purchase. The product sold like gangbusters when they changed the shelf placement.
As the research people involved commented: All the data in the world would simply have told them it wasn't selling. It would never have said a thing about WHY it wasn't selling.
It's pretty clear that Azoff's more interested in data than in customers.
Actually, letting the newspapers "win" might be a good idea.
Then they can hang themselves with the rope they themselves braided. They'll have no grounds for complaint when that happens, and nobody else to blame.
"Unless the goal was to provide employment to lawyers, it would have been more efficient to set the money on fire."
How do you know that wasn't the goal all along? The RIAA, like its member organizations, has demonstrated over and over again that they are NOT run by entrepreneurs but by lawyers and accountants. Given the lobbyists they pay for, in many respects much of the legislation passed in the United States over the last fifty years or so can all be lumped as "The Lawyers and Accountants Full Employment Act of 1960 1961 1962 ... 2010."
On the post: Russian Teacher Fired For Complaining About Having To Use Microsoft Software
"ridiculous response"
Heh. You don't read your own blog, obviously.
On the post: Mark Cuban: It's Okay For Broadcasters To Block Access Based On Browsers, Because They're Making Billions
What? Again!
What the TV moguls don't understand is that once you drive away your audience, you're not likely to get them back.
On the post: Can GM Legally Ignore Others' Patents, Thanks To US Ownership?
Shhh! Do *NOT* give lawyers ideas.
On the post: Wait, So The RIAA Is Offended That Google Won't Do Work For Free?
Cue Goofy's signature song
On the post: Ebook Publishers Never Learned: DRM & Ridiculous Prices
Re: Re: Why publishers don't care (A Guess)
Then the war broke out, and an ebook I'd pre-ordered for $8 was yanked from my supplier and never returned there. It showed up on Amazon and B&N, though, at $12. To be fair, I got my pre-order money back, but the short-sighted greed evidenced by the publisher's behavior rather soured me on the Big Names.
So what were my coping mechanisms?
1. I buy occasional stuff from the Big Names if it's something I really want to read badly enough to put up with giving them money for it.
2. My major purchased book suppliers these days are Baen and Harlequin. I'm a long-time Baen fan, and they've got reasonable prices, good stuff, and DRM-free. Harlequin's got reasonable prices, good stuff, and DRM that doesn't lock me into having to read the books on any given ebook platform. If it sounds like an odd combination of tastes, convenience plays a part. Also, they don't attempt to make me their financial bitch in the prison sense.
3. With the exceptions named in item 2, I never pre-order books anymore. Period. Paper or electronic. EVER.
4. And finally, although the quality varies all over the place, I finally convinced myself to start browsing friendly little shops in New Providence, Tortuga, and Port Royal.
On the post: More Stories Of People Following GPS Blindly Into Dangerous Situations
Obligatory Quotation
-- Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
"Oath of Fealty"
On the post: T-Mobile's Latest Android Phone Comes With Free Freedom-Destroying Rootkit
Re: Living with their heads in the clouds
On the post: New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
It's called "grandstanding".
2. An *actual study* of the consequences? Who cares?
On the post: Judge Tosses Out Wiretapping Charges Against Motorcyclist Who Filmed Cop With Helmet Cam
John 3:20 pretty much summarizes it
Let's face it, bullies with badges will always try to suppress evidence of their abuse of power.
On the post: Music Publishers Angry That Apple Didn't First Grovel To Them About 60-Second Song Previews
Re: They are irrelevant to me
On the post: Music Publishers Angry That Apple Didn't First Grovel To Them About 60-Second Song Previews
As a brilliant comment to an earlier post put it:
Alienate your Fans + Reason to Pirate
On the post: How The Patent Office Outsourced Its Job To Non-Expert Jurors
Re: Re: Actually, you CAN justify it.
NEW REGULATIONS FOR THE HUNTING OF LAWYERS
Government Department of Fish and "WildLife" Sec. 1200
1. Any person with a valid hunting license may harvest attorneys.
2. Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of currency as bait is prohibited.
3. Killing of attorneys with a vehicle is prohibited. If accidentally struck, remove dead attorney to roadside and proceed to nearest car wash.
4. It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a snow machine, helicopter, or aircraft.
5. It shall be unlawful to shout "whiplash", "ambulance", or "free Perrier" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.
6. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW dealerships.
7. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, whorehouses, health spas, gay bars, ambulances, or hospitals.
8. If an attorney is elected to government office, it shall be a felony to hunt, "entrap", or possess it.
9. Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for rabies, and vermin.
10. It shall be illegal for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drugdealer, pimp, female legal clerk, sheep, accident victim, bookie, or taxaccountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.
BAG LIMITS (Maximum number of catches allowed per hunting season)
1. Yellow Bellied Sidewinder... (2)
2. Two-faced Tort Feasor... (1)
3. Back-stabbing Divorce Litigator... (4)
4. Small-breasted Ball Buster... (3) (Female only)
5. Big-mouthed Pub Gut... (2)
6. Honest Attorney... (0) (On the Endangered Species List) (Illegal to hunt)
7. Cut-throat... (2)
8. Back-stabbing Whiner... (2)
9. Brown-nosed Judge Kisser... (2)
10. Silver-tongued Drug Defender... ($100 BOUNTY)
On the post: How The Patent Office Outsourced Its Job To Non-Expert Jurors
Actually, you CAN justify it.
On the post: Live Nation's Plans To Annoy More People?
Data Is Not Information
As the research people involved commented: All the data in the world would simply have told them it wasn't selling. It would never have said a thing about WHY it wasn't selling.
It's pretty clear that Azoff's more interested in data than in customers.
On the post: It's Back: Totally Unnecessary And Damaging Fashion Copyright Bill Reintroduced
Frederic Bastiat warned is in 1850
On the post: Everyone Has Something To Hide: Why Privacy Is Important Even If 'You've Done Nothing Wrong'
What makes THIS story so significant?
On the post: Google Explains Why Making Special Copyright Laws For Newspapers Is A Mistake
Actually, letting the newspapers "win" might be a good idea.
On the post: Beer Pong Players Upset Their Beer Commercial Has Gone Viral... Sue Over Inclusion In World's Funniest Commercials
One Less Lawyer
He has successfully established that he's not competent enough to BE a lawyer. Let's see:
1. A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
2. Has no clue about geographic restrictions, in the Age of the Internet, "mean precisely dick." (Tommy Lee Jones, MIB)
3. It is in the interests of his client (i.e. himself) NOT to call attention to the ad. I wouldn't hire a lawyer who damaged his own client.
Conclusion: Recruiters for law firms will probably notice item 3 in less time than it took me to get there.
On the post: RIAA Spent $17.6 Million In Lawsuits... To Get $391,000 In Settlements?
Re: You're reading that wrong.
How do you know that wasn't the goal all along? The RIAA, like its member organizations, has demonstrated over and over again that they are NOT run by entrepreneurs but by lawyers and accountants. Given the lobbyists they pay for, in many respects much of the legislation passed in the United States over the last fifty years or so can all be lumped as "The Lawyers and Accountants Full Employment Act of 1960 1961 1962 ... 2010."
On the post: Apple Deletes Thread About Consumer Reports Not Recommending An iPhone [Updated]
1984 is perfectly OK
Next >>