Also, nowhere did I state that I think there is a conspiracy of any sort. Though I do think Michael Mann was extremely foolish in both his original actions and in his current handling of the criticism of his actions.
I find this to be absolutely hilarious: The person who says that everyone who wants to write or talk must provide their credentials comments anonymously.
$79 billion sure sounds like a big number. Though if you smart you would have realized that $79 billion is 1/6th of the US Military budget in ONE YEAR. So, the US has taken 20 years to spend 1/6th of the amount on reducing impact as we spend on military in one year.
As for you assertion that it is a made up problem, just keep sticking your head in the sand.
CO2 may be only one of a number of things that affect greenhouse warming, but levels of it have dramatically increased over the past 40 years, and effects from the increase in CO2 can be directly shown to cause increase in global average temperatures. This increase in CO2 levels can also be directly traced to human activity.
Methane levels have also been shown to be increasing, though not as dramatically as CO2. This also creates a feedback loop, as thawing permafrost releases additional methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas.
When you say that CO2 is "a very small part of greenhouse gasses" (misspelling of "gases" retained) you completely ignore the fact that this "small part" can still be directly shown to have a significant affect on global average temperatures.
If the Ocean and other systems were capable of "scrubbing" the additional CO2 that humans have been spewing into the atmosphere, then levels of CO2 would remain flat, rather than increasing dramatically.
I would never make the claim that "man is killing the planet". The planet will be around long after humans are gone. But I do support the idea that man has made and is still making quite an impact, and the results of our impact are hard if not impossible to predict.
Your view of the subject clearly shows how you view the subject (which is to say "we are having no effect, we should keep doing everything as we have been doing it and make no changes to attempt to reduce our impact").
Well, that and the fact that the human contribution to "Climate change" is a fraction of a percent compared to, oh, every other geological and celestial (sun) forces that exerts a much more significant effect on our climate.
Wow, that is probably one of the most fallacious comments you could have possibly made. Carbon Dioxide levels have risen from 310ppm to 380ppm over the past 40 years. While increases of this amount have been seen through natural processes, natural processes would take hundreds (if not thousands) of years to create this type of increase.
Well, lets see. Between watching movies and TV shows through streaming on Netflix, TV shows through HULU, and NBA games in HD through the NBA pass I'm looking at somewhere around 150GB per month, all fully authorized and legal.
You could have just written what you were thinking: "Anyone who uses that much bandwidth must be a pirate and a raporist!" Then your stupidity would have been much more obvious.
Someone obviously doesn't know how taxes work. They may be able to deduct that $1 since it is paid out as a donation, but that $1 also goes in as income. So the net is $0, not negative $1. In no way does it allow them to pay less in taxes than would have if they had been providing a free report.
I thought the Nike logo flipped was the Newport Cigarette Logo?
Actually, Newport began selling cigarettes in 1957, while Nike was founded in 1964. So it looks like the Nike copied the Newport Logo and flipped it around.
Interesting how the article does not spend much time on the real issue: that her music is being pirated, and pirated from torrent based, pier sharing sites, etc.....
Did you say "pier sharing sites". I want a pier sharing site. My town only has one pier, and I get tired of fishing off the same pier all the time.
I question whether that was ever the case, but it certainly didn't apply once the GH franchise got established.
It didn't apply when they first got started either. The first Guitar Hero game used almost no mainstream/easily recognizable bands, and was praised as one of the best game soundtracks ever.
You think I am a troll because I don't agree with Mike.
Wrong. We think you are a troll due to your techniques on these comments. You rarely if ever back up your statements with real facts. Whenever real facts are presented that contradict you, you dismiss it with statements like "maybe there's more to it", you insult people often. In general you act like a troll. If you actually participated in reasoned discourse, followed proper logic, and didn't contradict yourself constantly then people wouldn't call you a troll.
Rather than getting so angry that people assume that you are employed by the Recodring and/or Music industries (a reasonable assumption based on your comments), you could simply say what your profession is.
It's the same story though: Don't worry about piracy, embrace it. Don't worry about copyright violations, embrace them. In the end, it is saying "those who steal from you or misuse your products aren't bad, you are bad because you were too stupid to give it away for free already".
I think you completely misread what Mike was saying. I see it more of "Those who misuse your trademarks are often misguided. It is better to work with them and get good PR out of the situation, than to break out the layers and suffer bad PR"
Your math is incorrect. 5500%= 55 times as many, not 5.5 times as many. So you are of by a decimal point. So to correct your math (consistent use of commas in your numbers makes them easier to read):
$40*1,000=$40,000x3(days)=$120,000 in revenue for that weekend on that game. Now, slash the price by 75%...So $40-75%=$10. 1,000x55(5500%)=55,000 of "units" sold per day for the sale increase. $10*55,000=$550,000x3(days)=$1,650,000 in sales on the same game over the same time period.
$1,650,000 vs $120,000 Quite a large difference
13x more sales, yes, but not 13x more profits. a cut in price by 50 or 75% often means you have just tossed your profits out the window and have sunk into paying people to take stuff away.
Wrong again. You are still thinking about it as if it a scarce good, in which the average cost per unit is the same regardless of how many you produce. With a non-scarce good which is distributed digitally (such as is the case with this example) your average cost per unit decreases dramatically as you sell more because your marginal cost is zero. So you are not "tossing your profits", you are making more profits.
Once again you show your failure to grasp scarce vs non-scarce goods.
Ahh Tammy, you seem so flustered. You clearly try to miss the point on purpose, you pull bogus numbers out of the air to "prove" your point (7500 copies? Jill Sobule will probably distribute at least a million copies), and you view fans as freeloaders and muggers.
My favorite line you wrote is probably this gem: Music and movies are only "non scarce" because people are pirating them. Otherwise, they would be as scarce as always. It is pretty insane to base a business model on widespread piracy, no?
This line shows how you really don't understand what "scarce" vs "non-scarce" means. Scarcity is an inherent property. Anything that can be digitally encoded (and therefore easily copied for practically no marginal cost) is by definition a non-scarce good. You can't take a non-scarce good and make it scarce. Though you can use that non-scarce good to sell scarce goods. The scarce and non-scarce good compliment each other to give more value to the customer, and encourages them to buy. Distributing that non-scarce good widely gives you much more opportunity to sell scarce goods.
It's not about basing your business model on widespread piracy, it's about taking advantage of the fact that digital distribution allows for easy and cheap distribution on a level that was unheard of before. Until you can understand this very basic point, you will continue to fail at this.
That is what you are missing. Most of them don't give anything. Remember the the Radiohead thing? Average was about 5 pounds paid, but more than half paid nothing. Half of the people were just freeloaders.
Yeah, but how many more downloads did they get compared to if they had been charging $10 each? They had over 1.2 million downloads of that album. It's hard to predict, but it's safe to say would have sold less if they were charging $10 each. But they also got alot more this way, because if they had done the traditional approach of putting the album out through a label, they would have likely only received around 25 cents per album.
Calling them fans is like calling mugging "wealth redistribution". It's a glass half full view of people who took something for nothing, and have no intention of paying for anything else either.
You make quite a leap there. What leads you to believe that they have no intention of paying for anything ever? I have seen many people who download music for free still fork out cash for concert tickets and band merchandise. Even if they don't buy anything, they still help spread the music to people who will pay.
When the people who are paying start to understand that most people got it for nothing, they will stop paying.
Wrong again. When you offer something that they want and are willing to pay for, they will pay. The trick is let the people who want it for free have it, but give the ones who do pay something extra that they want.
Alas, marginal cost isn't the only part of the per unit cost for music. Jill Sobule's $75,000 record would need to sell 7500 copies at $10 each to break even. The marginal cost may be zero, but the actual cost per until (for 7500) is $10. You are making the marginal mistake.
7500 copies? Why would you choose such an arbitrarily low number? You must be aware that selling only 7500 copies of any album would make that album an unrivaled failure. It's quite obvious that you chose that number out of the air simply to match the end number you were going for.
So since you are just pulling number out of the air then showing how much per unit that costs I can do the same:
75,000 copies = $1 per copy
100,000 copies = 75 cents per copy
300,000 copies = 25 cents per copy
1 million copies (platinum) = 7.5 cents per copy
See how the fact that you have 0 marginal costs encourages you to distribute it to as many people as possible? You don't have to get $10 an album if you get it to 1 million people. And if that many people are hearing your music then plenty of people will buy whatever else you are selling.
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
As for you assertion that it is a made up problem, just keep sticking your head in the sand.
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
Methane levels have also been shown to be increasing, though not as dramatically as CO2. This also creates a feedback loop, as thawing permafrost releases additional methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas.
When you say that CO2 is "a very small part of greenhouse gasses" (misspelling of "gases" retained) you completely ignore the fact that this "small part" can still be directly shown to have a significant affect on global average temperatures.
If the Ocean and other systems were capable of "scrubbing" the additional CO2 that humans have been spewing into the atmosphere, then levels of CO2 would remain flat, rather than increasing dramatically.
I would never make the claim that "man is killing the planet". The planet will be around long after humans are gone. But I do support the idea that man has made and is still making quite an impact, and the results of our impact are hard if not impossible to predict.
Your view of the subject clearly shows how you view the subject (which is to say "we are having no effect, we should keep doing everything as we have been doing it and make no changes to attempt to reduce our impact").
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Well, and...
Wow, that is probably one of the most fallacious comments you could have possibly made. Carbon Dioxide levels have risen from 310ppm to 380ppm over the past 40 years. While increases of this amount have been seen through natural processes, natural processes would take hundreds (if not thousands) of years to create this type of increase.
On the post: Frontier Communications "Testing" To See How Users Respond To Being Ridiculously Overcharged For Bandwidth
Re: Re: Doesn't seem right somehow....
You could have just written what you were thinking: "Anyone who uses that much bandwidth must be a pirate and a raporist!" Then your stupidity would have been much more obvious.
On the post: If FreeCreditReport.com Doesn't Even Offer A Free Credit Report... Is That Truth In Advertising?
Re: $1 to charity = profit
On the post: North Face Lawyers Try To Drag South Butt Family Through The Mud
Re: Re: Re: Mike, dont be disingenuous
Actually, Newport began selling cigarettes in 1957, while Nike was founded in 1964. So it looks like the Nike copied the Newport Logo and flipped it around.
On the post: Free Is Not An Aberration; It's Basic Economics
Free newspapers
On the post: Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet
Re: Except...
Did you say "pier sharing sites". I want a pier sharing site. My town only has one pier, and I get tired of fishing off the same pier all the time.
On the post: Viacom To Record Labels: If You Want More Money For Music In Video Games, We'll Find Other Music
Re: Re:
It didn't apply when they first got started either. The first Guitar Hero game used almost no mainstream/easily recognizable bands, and was praised as one of the best game soundtracks ever.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?
Re: Re: Re: I know! I know!
On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask TAM
Wrong. We think you are a troll due to your techniques on these comments. You rarely if ever back up your statements with real facts. Whenever real facts are presented that contradict you, you dismiss it with statements like "maybe there's more to it", you insult people often. In general you act like a troll. If you actually participated in reasoned discourse, followed proper logic, and didn't contradict yourself constantly then people wouldn't call you a troll.
Rather than getting so angry that people assume that you are employed by the Recodring and/or Music industries (a reasonable assumption based on your comments), you could simply say what your profession is.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?
Re: Re: Re: Missd the train again
I think you completely misread what Mike was saying. I see it more of "Those who misuse your trademarks are often misguided. It is better to work with them and get good PR out of the situation, than to break out the layers and suffer bad PR"
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?
Re: I know! I know!
The High School has better aerodynamics
On the post: Online Gaming Store Lowers Prices 75%, Sees Sales Shoot Up 5500%
Re: Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
On the post: Online Gaming Store Lowers Prices 75%, Sees Sales Shoot Up 5500%
Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
$40*1,000=$40,000x3(days)=$120,000 in revenue for that weekend on that game. Now, slash the price by 75%...So $40-75%=$10. 1,000x55(5500%)=55,000 of "units" sold per day for the sale increase. $10*55,000=$550,000x3(days)=$1,650,000 in sales on the same game over the same time period.
$1,650,000 vs $120,000 Quite a large difference
On the post: Online Gaming Store Lowers Prices 75%, Sees Sales Shoot Up 5500%
Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
Wrong again. You are still thinking about it as if it a scarce good, in which the average cost per unit is the same regardless of how many you produce. With a non-scarce good which is distributed digitally (such as is the case with this example) your average cost per unit decreases dramatically as you sell more because your marginal cost is zero. So you are not "tossing your profits", you are making more profits.
Once again you show your failure to grasp scarce vs non-scarce goods.
On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
No response from TAM makes me a sad panda
My favorite line you wrote is probably this gem:
Music and movies are only "non scarce" because people are pirating them. Otherwise, they would be as scarce as always. It is pretty insane to base a business model on widespread piracy, no?
This line shows how you really don't understand what "scarce" vs "non-scarce" means. Scarcity is an inherent property. Anything that can be digitally encoded (and therefore easily copied for practically no marginal cost) is by definition a non-scarce good. You can't take a non-scarce good and make it scarce. Though you can use that non-scarce good to sell scarce goods. The scarce and non-scarce good compliment each other to give more value to the customer, and encourages them to buy. Distributing that non-scarce good widely gives you much more opportunity to sell scarce goods.
It's not about basing your business model on widespread piracy, it's about taking advantage of the fact that digital distribution allows for easy and cheap distribution on a level that was unheard of before. Until you can understand this very basic point, you will continue to fail at this.
On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what you are missing. Most of them don't give anything. Remember the the Radiohead thing? Average was about 5 pounds paid, but more than half paid nothing. Half of the people were just freeloaders.
Yeah, but how many more downloads did they get compared to if they had been charging $10 each? They had over 1.2 million downloads of that album. It's hard to predict, but it's safe to say would have sold less if they were charging $10 each. But they also got alot more this way, because if they had done the traditional approach of putting the album out through a label, they would have likely only received around 25 cents per album.
Calling them fans is like calling mugging "wealth redistribution". It's a glass half full view of people who took something for nothing, and have no intention of paying for anything else either.
You make quite a leap there. What leads you to believe that they have no intention of paying for anything ever? I have seen many people who download music for free still fork out cash for concert tickets and band merchandise. Even if they don't buy anything, they still help spread the music to people who will pay.
When the people who are paying start to understand that most people got it for nothing, they will stop paying.
Wrong again. When you offer something that they want and are willing to pay for, they will pay. The trick is let the people who want it for free have it, but give the ones who do pay something extra that they want.
Alas, marginal cost isn't the only part of the per unit cost for music. Jill Sobule's $75,000 record would need to sell 7500 copies at $10 each to break even. The marginal cost may be zero, but the actual cost per until (for 7500) is $10. You are making the marginal mistake.
7500 copies? Why would you choose such an arbitrarily low number? You must be aware that selling only 7500 copies of any album would make that album an unrivaled failure. It's quite obvious that you chose that number out of the air simply to match the end number you were going for.
So since you are just pulling number out of the air then showing how much per unit that costs I can do the same:
75,000 copies = $1 per copy
100,000 copies = 75 cents per copy
300,000 copies = 25 cents per copy
1 million copies (platinum) = 7.5 cents per copy
See how the fact that you have 0 marginal costs encourages you to distribute it to as many people as possible? You don't have to get $10 an album if you get it to 1 million people. And if that many people are hearing your music then plenty of people will buy whatever else you are selling.
Next >>