I love Andy Ihnatko's column and for the most part he does and says A LOT of good, but when he gets it wrong, he does it in style.
He should keep in mind that when camera's started appearing in mobile phones, he was one of the people in the tech community who said it was HIGHLY UNLIKELY that cameras in mobile phones would ever catch on.
This one is a no brainer. You don't need studies to figure out the Telcos and Cable companies blatantly lie when it comes to bandwidth hogs.
First of all, fixed and wireless networks in the US have been merging their traffic for at least the past 5 years. In the fixed world, ATT and Verizon have been trying to put caps on usage because of "bandwidth hogs" while at the same time promoting their TV offerings, which will definitely use far more bandwidth than they accuse the hogs of using.
It's all about getting the monthly phone bill back to where it was before IP destroyed their pricing model. So they charge us for the pipe and when we use it they create an artificial scarcity ( sound familiar? ).
That is called elasticity, and content creators rarely understand the concept of lowering the price to increase the profit.
The common argument is that the content is soooo valuable that lowering the price would be stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
Guess what? If the record labels set up their own online music store like iTunes and then set the prices at $.25 or $.10 per song, then yes they would probably crush iTunes overnight and rake in a ton of cash ( and get your $100).
There are a lot of people unwilling to pay $10 for 10 songs who would be willing to pay $10 for 100 songs.
Maybe the RIAA should start counting overpricing as lost sales.
Aonther AC that doesn't understand math. A $2 download has no costs other than hosting on a server its almost pure profit. And where do you get the idea that Hollywood is selling downloads for $2, when its more like $15 on iTunes. A $7.50 movie ticket has to be shared with the theater. A $16 DVD has manufacturing and distribution costs associated with it.
So let's see, you need 2 movie tickets to net the same as one download, but you're the math wizard; or maybe you're confusing downloading with streaming on a service. I know all this tech stuff can be confusing.
While I agree that the number of people willing to pay for a movie is limited, that is true with or without a release window. People who download a movie and like it are much more likely to go to the theater to see that movie, thus paying for it twice.
I think your argument is more along the lines of.... but if Hollywood releases crappy movies, their revenues will fall because of the maximum for things they don't like. Release windows just make consumers choose to spend their money elsewhere and wait for the content to hit the market through a less expensive channel.
I'm sure that many more people would be up to support SOPA/PIPA if copyrights were ratcheted back to 10 or 20 years maximum, and the statutory penalties were lowered substantially or eliminated completely so that the rightsholder would have show actual financial harm.
We might all be ok with increased enforcement if the public domain didn't suffer so much. People deserve to be compensated for their work, but not in perpetuity throughout the known universe.
For all the Trolls who begin their rants with "This is how business works..." I have to wonder if math is emphasized in their business or economics classes.
Let's see... I have a video product that requires licensing for the music, but the licenses reduce my profit to a negative. I can only suppose this is because the gatekeepers have to split that license with the artists as a 50/50 and the gatekeeper wants to maximize their 50%. My only option is to go back and try to negotiate a lower fee for licenses and explain the economics. That does work so I, decide I just have to change the music.
Result: The gatekeepers and artists that would not negotiate lower licensing fees get ZERO. They completely succeeded in keeping the value of their product very high, unfortunately by not selling it, the resulting price point is ZERO, and the gross and net on this new steam of revenue remain ZERO. They have ignored an added revenue stream that they were not actively pursuing because it was not as profitable as they would have preferred.
The smart decision is to take a reduced license fee and accept the bonus revenue which may actually stimulate customers' interest in the artists and result in more sales of the music.
Personally since I listen to 99% of my music through my laptop, I moved from Limewire to Frostwire to Poison to Grooveshark to a subscription on Spotify.
I don't live in France so HADOPI had nothing to do with my decline in music piracy.
I can't speak for the kids, but once you've paid for THE SAME MUSIC on vinyl then 8track (ugh) then cassette, then CD, it becomes incredibly difficult to justify paying for it again on mp3. I know the recording industry just expected an endless cycle of format changes and that we consumers would pay for the same shit about 10 times til we die. SURPRISE.
How many times has a troll said..."You pirates just want free stuff!"
Well Capitol Records obviously understands the value of free stuff....
"The Audit also revealed that Capitol Records has distributed “FREE goods”
containing the Masters in foreign territories without accounting for or paying royalties for those FREE goods. The Recording Agreements specifically state that FREE goods distributed in foreign territories shall not be reduced from calculations of the total number of foreign sales used to determine the royalties due Kenny Rogers. Capitol Records has failed to provide documentation regarding the exact number of FREE goods upon which Kenny Rogers is due royalties. However, Capitol Records has provided information which indicates it has underpaid Kenny Rogers by at least $17,754.52, by not properly paying royalties for free goods distributed in foreign territories."
So it's ok to give away someone else's content when you agree to pay them for it and then its ok to not pay them for it.
Why isn't the RIAA on top of this? It sure as hell seems like piracy. Capitol took content that wasn't theirs and distributed it for FREE. Isn't that piracy???
"Not understanding that the value of NOT selling it is higher than the value of selling it is pretty much key here. It's a business, not a charity."
I've heard some really stupid bullshit before, but this one is AMAZING. The value of NOT selling a product????? Ummmmm not sure what the value is, but I know that if you are NOT selling the product then the price would be $0.
Thats not stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. That's just stepping over dollars and merrily trotting along past the pennies.
Don't get me wrong, NOT selling your product doesn't justify infringement.
The problem is that you don't seem to understand that value and price are two different things. NOT selling your product does not increase the value, it frustrates the consumers and lowers the value, which may or may not affect the price.
This is where the idea of legislation instead of competition comes from. I can already hear the chorus of "I shouldn't have to compete with the pirates." Not the pirates, the market in general. Put it on netflix or HULU, or just sell it on iTunes or Amazon for a price, before it loses it's value.
I think everyone is forgetting the whole point of Whack-a-Mole. You are not trying to stop the moles from popping up, you are trying to hit as many as possible to get the highest score.
So in effect, the opponents of TPB are going for the HIGH SCORE!
"Talk about pulling numbers out of your ass and trying to make a point, this is probably the most classic Techdirt post ever."
I have to give this AC some credit:
#1 The AC calls this the most classic TechDirt post ever.
#2 The AC follows with the least insightful response ever.
"Where to start? There is so much bullshit here I need a shovel."
Instead of piling on more bullshit, try a simple question. If Apple and Amazon do so little and reap such huge benefits, WHY didn't the labels make their own digital distribution infrastructure and do it THEIR way????
Even better WHY don't they do it NOW?
THINK for a moment. There is NOTHING that is stopping their entry into the market. The labels could compete with iTunes. Compete you say? What's that?
You can whine at Mike and both sides can talk about bullshit numbers all day, but at the end of it, the labels are free to compete against iTunes and they can add all the DRM they want and they can price the product however they want and they can even pull their catalogues from iTunes if they want. So what is stopping them?
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
When Andy gets it wrong, he goes BIG
He should keep in mind that when camera's started appearing in mobile phones, he was one of the people in the tech community who said it was HIGHLY UNLIKELY that cameras in mobile phones would ever catch on.
Guess he never read Dick Tracy while growing up
On the post: The Internet Is A Series Of UTubes (And They're Clogged)
Update
On the post: Andrew Dubber's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: the IP version
the Intellectual Property corollary
Those who can, do. Those who can't, set themselves up as gatekeepers and sue
On the post: Reductio Ad Absurdum: Eternal Copyright Is Crazy... But What About Today's Copyright Term?
Re: Re:
Allow me to help you out. What you are dealing with is the classic argument that goes like this.
statement: I respect your opinion but I am entitled to my opinion as well, so we have to agree to disagree.
counter: But your stance is an opinion and my stance is based on fact.
counter: That is YOUR opinion.
In other words, your facts are not valid because the opposition considers your facts to be an opinion like their opinion.
On the post: Study Confirms What You Already Knew: Mobile Data Throttling About The Money, Not Stopping Data Hogs
You don't need studies
First of all, fixed and wireless networks in the US have been merging their traffic for at least the past 5 years. In the fixed world, ATT and Verizon have been trying to put caps on usage because of "bandwidth hogs" while at the same time promoting their TV offerings, which will definitely use far more bandwidth than they accuse the hogs of using.
It's all about getting the monthly phone bill back to where it was before IP destroyed their pricing model. So they charge us for the pipe and when we use it they create an artificial scarcity ( sound familiar? ).
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re:
The common argument is that the content is soooo valuable that lowering the price would be stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
Guess what? If the record labels set up their own online music store like iTunes and then set the prices at $.25 or $.10 per song, then yes they would probably crush iTunes overnight and rake in a ton of cash ( and get your $100).
There are a lot of people unwilling to pay $10 for 10 songs who would be willing to pay $10 for 100 songs.
Maybe the RIAA should start counting overpricing as lost sales.
On the post: Why Ebook Portal Library.nu Differed From Other Filesharing Sites
Ummmm
We are beyond paper now. So what does this mean for actual libraries? They can't offer ebooks ? They can't be accessed online?
On the post: Real Scarcity Is An Important Part Of A Business Model; Artificial Scarcity Is A Terrible Business Model
Re:
So let's see, you need 2 movie tickets to net the same as one download, but you're the math wizard; or maybe you're confusing downloading with streaming on a service. I know all this tech stuff can be confusing.
While I agree that the number of people willing to pay for a movie is limited, that is true with or without a release window. People who download a movie and like it are much more likely to go to the theater to see that movie, thus paying for it twice.
I think your argument is more along the lines of.... but if Hollywood releases crappy movies, their revenues will fall because of the maximum for things they don't like. Release windows just make consumers choose to spend their money elsewhere and wait for the content to hit the market through a less expensive channel.
On the post: Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley... And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It
Give and take
We might all be ok with increased enforcement if the public domain didn't suffer so much. People deserve to be compensated for their work, but not in perpetuity throughout the known universe.
On the post: La La La La La: The Internet Routes Around Copyright Censorship To Restore Daria
Business school trolls
Let's see... I have a video product that requires licensing for the music, but the licenses reduce my profit to a negative. I can only suppose this is because the gatekeepers have to split that license with the artists as a 50/50 and the gatekeeper wants to maximize their 50%. My only option is to go back and try to negotiate a lower fee for licenses and explain the economics. That does work so I, decide I just have to change the music.
Result: The gatekeepers and artists that would not negotiate lower licensing fees get ZERO. They completely succeeded in keeping the value of their product very high, unfortunately by not selling it, the resulting price point is ZERO, and the gross and net on this new steam of revenue remain ZERO. They have ignored an added revenue stream that they were not actively pursuing because it was not as profitable as they would have preferred.
The smart decision is to take a reduced license fee and accept the bonus revenue which may actually stimulate customers' interest in the artists and result in more sales of the music.
On the post: Techdirt Deemed Harmful To Minors In Germany
It's Mike's fault
Then it's perfectly ok
On the post: FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
It's too easy to pass up
On the post: Kenny Rogers' Lawsuit Shows The Many Ways That A Major Label Screws Artists (Even The Big Ones)
Re: Re: Re: Cheats
http://rapfix.mtv.com/2011/03/22/eminem-victorious-in-lawsuit-against-record-label/
http: //www.billboard.com/news/public-enemy-s-chuck-d-files-100m-lawsuit-1005477392.story#/news/public-ene my-s-chuck-d-files-100m-lawsuit-1005477392.story
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/univers al-music-lawsuit-rob-zombie-rick-james-256662
Floodgates open
On the post: Recording Industry Can't Wait To Start Kicking People Offline In France For Listening To Their Favorite Songs
I for one
I don't live in France so HADOPI had nothing to do with my decline in music piracy.
I can't speak for the kids, but once you've paid for THE SAME MUSIC on vinyl then 8track (ugh) then cassette, then CD, it becomes incredibly difficult to justify paying for it again on mp3. I know the recording industry just expected an endless cycle of format changes and that we consumers would pay for the same shit about 10 times til we die. SURPRISE.
On the post: Kenny Rogers' Lawsuit Shows The Many Ways That A Major Label Screws Artists (Even The Big Ones)
Troll this!!!
Well Capitol Records obviously understands the value of free stuff....
"The Audit also revealed that Capitol Records has distributed “FREE goods”
containing the Masters in foreign territories without accounting for or paying royalties for those FREE goods. The Recording Agreements specifically state that FREE goods distributed in foreign territories shall not be reduced from calculations of the total number of foreign sales used to determine the royalties due Kenny Rogers. Capitol Records has failed to provide documentation regarding the exact number of FREE goods upon which Kenny Rogers is due royalties. However, Capitol Records has provided information which indicates it has underpaid Kenny Rogers by at least $17,754.52, by not properly paying royalties for free goods distributed in foreign territories."
So it's ok to give away someone else's content when you agree to pay them for it and then its ok to not pay them for it.
Why isn't the RIAA on top of this? It sure as hell seems like piracy. Capitol took content that wasn't theirs and distributed it for FREE. Isn't that piracy???
On the post: Universal Music Album Recalled... For Infringing Content?
One more time for the fun of it
On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps
Re:
"Not understanding that the value of NOT selling it is higher than the value of selling it is pretty much key here. It's a business, not a charity."
I've heard some really stupid bullshit before, but this one is AMAZING. The value of NOT selling a product????? Ummmmm not sure what the value is, but I know that if you are NOT selling the product then the price would be $0.
Thats not stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. That's just stepping over dollars and merrily trotting along past the pennies.
Don't get me wrong, NOT selling your product doesn't justify infringement.
The problem is that you don't seem to understand that value and price are two different things. NOT selling your product does not increase the value, it frustrates the consumers and lowers the value, which may or may not affect the price.
This is where the idea of legislation instead of competition comes from. I can already hear the chorus of "I shouldn't have to compete with the pirates." Not the pirates, the market in general. Put it on netflix or HULU, or just sell it on iTunes or Amazon for a price, before it loses it's value.
On the post: The Pirate Bay May Get Blocked In The UK; That'll Stop The Infringement
Re: Wack-a-mole
So in effect, the opponents of TPB are going for the HIGH SCORE!
Vive le Entertainment!
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
Re:
I have to give this AC some credit:
#1 The AC calls this the most classic TechDirt post ever.
#2 The AC follows with the least insightful response ever.
"Where to start? There is so much bullshit here I need a shovel."
Instead of piling on more bullshit, try a simple question. If Apple and Amazon do so little and reap such huge benefits, WHY didn't the labels make their own digital distribution infrastructure and do it THEIR way????
Even better WHY don't they do it NOW?
THINK for a moment. There is NOTHING that is stopping their entry into the market. The labels could compete with iTunes. Compete you say? What's that?
You can whine at Mike and both sides can talk about bullshit numbers all day, but at the end of it, the labels are free to compete against iTunes and they can add all the DRM they want and they can price the product however they want and they can even pull their catalogues from iTunes if they want. So what is stopping them?
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
They should meet
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120219rogers#gq8-RMnkiSdOV0EsATdQrQ
Next >>