This just strikes me as a huge case of gamblers fallacy. They took a risk on the case hoping that it would pay off and each time it hasn't they've looked at the time and money and thought "well a bit more and surely we'll get what we want and it will all be worth it". They are going to play this through to the end because if they simply cut their losses now they'll have to admit to themselves it's what they should have done in the first place and heads will roll. So those self same heads will justify anything if they can convince themselves theirs hope.
"The number of times that record was then played- 1, 10, 1000 times, is immaterial. To have 'on demand' access to that track, you had to buy it."
So lets get this straight, if an artist across all sales of his albums ends up getting 0.0001 of a cent (or something) per play of the songs those albums over time that's immaterial because you used to have to buy the album instead of stream it to provide that revenue to the artist?
Using very general numbers a band could actually only end up seeing $1.25 from an album sale, across 10 tracks that's 0.125 per track. It really doesn't take that many listens over a lifetime of ownership for that to get down to the same scale as the spotify you are raging about. They are not comparable of course which is the irony of you calling the per play immaterial when you just compared a sale to a single stream cost but whatever.
But lets talk about radio, in fact why don't you go and read the blog that was linked by the pandora one. Go on, I'll wait.
Base d on Lowery’s own numbers AM/FM paid him $1,373.78 for 18,797 spins or 7.3 cents per play. Much higher than 0.0001 but only 70,000 people need to have been listening for it to be pretty much the same. As the blog points out the radio station Pandora just brought manages 18,000 average so if you think that is unattainable by a large nation station you are... weird, frankly. Popular radio shows are listened to in the millions. And this is before we even talk about caps.
You may want to brush that under the carpet as "immaterial" because it's not on demand but under the old label system that on demand 'premium' for artists is even significantly more.
In this day and age there is no question that buying a track directly from an artist via a service like band camp is one of the best thing you can do support that artist. The thing is that the people who want to support you in that way will regardless of if they can stream you and what streaming is doing is providing you a comparable per listen income to radio and even sales and that income is coming from people who may never have been montaised in the same way. This is before we even consider the value of streaming as advertising to grow the fan base who will buy your songs and merch and come to your shows and how streaming is vastly more egalitarian. There are many bands I know who have their songs on streaming services that will likely never, ever, see radio play.
So what have we learned? Per listener radio likely pays vastly less per spin in terms of people listening to that spin and this is purely when we are talking about songwriting royalties vs songwriting royalties because US radio doesn't actually pay performance ones and only for artists big enough to played on radio in the first place. That under the label system artists barely saw a real premium for "on demand access" in the first place and in the new world they can both expand their core fan base and make money from people they may never have made money from otherwise.
But nah, lets just listen to the people representing a dying business model based on charging tolls for passing through a centralised system under their control in a world that has distributed that system and power among the people who actually use it. Nothing can possi-bligh go wrong.
I'm sorry but Microsoft just spent a week of prime media coverage making fools of themselves defending the DRM they just removed and running around with their tail between their legs after Sony pulled the rug out from under them.
I could buy this idea more (and don't get me wrong this is something we do see a lot) if Microsoft had done it at their E3 press conference. But they didn't, this seems far more reactionary as a result. I don't think Microsoft would have wasted this press coverage, took a beating on stock prices, handed the narrative over to Sony and took a beating in the eyes of the non-informed gaming public just to sell people on a type of DRM that is, effectively, already widely accepted in services like steam.
Microsoft wanted this, invested in this, expected it to work and had one of the worst console announcements ever as a result.
Shakespeare was writing popular entertainment in the language of the time. His work would have been no harder for a contemporary to understand in terms of the language than anything on TV right now. We have to do a lot of extra work when reading it to understand it these days and this often gives the wrong impression to people of his genius. When we are separated from people by time and language and contemporary thought we can be tricked into thinking that they are somehow better, more experiences and deeper thinkers than our contemporaries but when you look you see that they thought the same of the people who came before them.
A hundred years from now there will be someone like you, separated from us by thought time and language who will be cherry picking the best and brightest and bemoaning how we no longer talk or think in such ways. You called other people here arrogant for disagreeing with you but the fact is that people are people and there are more people than ever and alive right now are exactly the kind of people that you, born a hundred years from now, would hero worship while ignoring the fact that such people are around you right now thinking great thoughts, producing great works of endless creativity.
The issue here isn't dealing with troll, if you ignore him he won't go away and may even escalate his insanity but at the moment every thread is the same old crap. Techdirt takes the view that the trolls can spirt interesting debate, which they often can, but this can't and it's just bubbling over with the same people saying the same things over and over. Repeating the same actions and expecting different results is madness, the troll is mad but the rest of us show know better. I'd much prefer if we could just act like these troll posts are the dog crap they are and avoid treading on them while we get on with our lives.
Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
Can we automatically replace his sig with the following from now on?
Take a loopy tour of out_of_the_Blue! You always end up nowhere near the topic at hand!
Where OOTB "I make up connections where none exist" lives up to his name to derail attempts to talk about topics he dislike. 01:36:53[b-297-8]
Wouldn't it be just all that much more comforting if that was the case? That it would have to be a government who had such power and control to pull this off rather than two random guys on the street? The idea that a small number of individuals with next to no resources can bring such horrific acts to fruition in the face of overwhelming surveillance is horrifying and as such as I can understand your need to find a 'true' actor behind it but life doesn't work like that. Horrible, random, things happen and trying to find order and patterns and reasons in them above and beyond the obvious "these men chose to kill people and found a way to do it" is an attempt to rationalise that fear but in doing so you are blinding yourself to the reality. The truth is government conspiracy exists but it's of the dull, obvious, type, banking, surveillance and we are aware of them. The NSA program was tripped up a contractor and you expect me to believe they could pull off something like this in total secrecy? Really?
The thing about this is people keep saying "but ya it won't be an issue for me" which totally misses the point it is an issue for you because it shows the mindset with which Microsoft regards you as consumer.
Imagine your dad sold you his car, now imagine if your dad said he would come around once a day to check you haven't messed with the car and if you had he'd take the keys. More imagine he said that if he was unable to come around or if you happened to be out when he came to visit that he would insist you didn't drive the car until he could check it else he'd take the keys. How much do you feel you would own that car?
Microsoft presumes you are going to break the law and is placing restrictions on you for something you've not done. Why the fuck would you want to give people who hold you in such regard money?
Why do you need a 24 hour check in to sell the games? So long as you have to be online to sell the game then the game is removed from your account. At that point you can no longer play the game on your system or any other system with the game installed, you go offline and... what changes exactly?
The only reason for the 24 hour check in is that microsoft presumes that since you can install games you will side load them because you are criminal not a consumer. As a result you are being asked to let them dictate when you can use your console, that you paid $500 for, because you can't be trusted.
Steam allows me to be offline as much as I like and even if steam fails I only lose my ability to play games I have on that service not my ability to play games on my hardware. If microsoft service fails you have a $500 paper weight that can't do anything the device you typed this post on already does.
It's utterly amazing to me that you could be so easily spun.
I was playing a really awesome board/card game last night called infiltration, it's a cyberpunk setting and the goal is to break into a company and steal as much "data" as you can. We were making jokes about "data" but with the way things are going cyberpunk largely has it right in that trope, data will be king.
With enough information it really stops mattering what information you acquire so long as you can relate it to what you already have. Increasing your dataset always comes with the chance of being able to find new value with in it and as computers become more powerful and we build better and better programs for finding patterns and relationships everything starts to matter.
Data mining has already started and it's only going to lead for a rush for data and to find sources and types of data that hold undiscovered value.
I don't want to live in your world where no one has freedoms to be taken advantage of and my loved ones can be harmed by their own goverment in the name of protecting those self samed loved ones.
One of the points in this video is that the next gen of consoles are going to live or die on exclusive games because they have utterly failed to offer other reasons to buy. There's no big jump in fidelity and the boxes are becoming more like the PC's who price can almost match them.
The market is fundamentally different and the result is exclusive games more than ever feel like they are being held hostage as a way to make you buy into a platform you don't want rather than more reason to buy into one you do.
So in that regard I think there is an argument for this action in that it highlights that people are becoming a little sick of being gated from games they want based on having to choose between platforms that have a huge buy in.
The question is simple, would the content have been in the game and would the game be sold at the same price if it wasn't being sold as DLC? The answer is largely 'no' in a lot of cases, there is limited time and budget to make a game and that has to be balanced with potential returns. Developers can now afford to keep a content production cycle going, rather than starting a new cycle for an expansion or a totally new game, because they can expect a return. Simply saying "dlc should have been in the base game" is completely ignoring the economic realities.
Talking of which you are also discounting that possibility that because devs can now sell a lot of stuff that used to be "unlocks" as DLC after the game has come out, often using what would otherwise be down time for content creators during the QA to do so, they don't have to spend as much main development time on these items which could mean more actual content or more polish in the actual game.
Some DLC is exploitative money grubbing but it's not inherently a bad thing.
Re: This is a real mania with you 14-year-olds, isn't it?
So just so we are clear the only way to grow up and stop acting like a 14 year only is to simply accept what you are told is "common sense" even when their is no evidence to support it? So you either just admitted that you are 14 or that you accept what you are told at face value with no need to think critically about it. So you've just pretty much undermined everything you have and will ever say on any topic here because you've categorically stated that you have no interest in a critical debate just justifying what you view as "common sense". Well done.
Re: "encouraging interaction with the uploaded works"
So because you don't value the works this move might inspire people to create it doesn't count as inspiring those works? You also gloss over how having access to study these works in high quality imagery is an incredible resource for any artist.
There is something about seeing physical art in person that you can't get from a scan. These scans are amazing for any number of reasons and see good quality scans is better than seeing nothing at all but they won't replace actually being in a room with these objects.
Which is not not me precious about art having to be physical. In fact my time at art school was largely about exploring digital work. It's just when something is created in a physical way seeing the physical thing is more often than not seeing it as it was intended and that is a one of the key experiences of art. It's not the only one of course but it remains a reason that going to see art is different than consuming it at home even when it's not a performance.
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Universal Music: You Lost The Veoh Case, Get Over It
A perfect example of...
On the post: Pandora's Fed Up With The Lies The RIAA Has Been Spreading About It: Presents Some Facts
Re: Re: missing the point
*Isn't even
On the post: Pandora's Fed Up With The Lies The RIAA Has Been Spreading About It: Presents Some Facts
Re: missing the point
So lets get this straight, if an artist across all sales of his albums ends up getting 0.0001 of a cent (or something) per play of the songs those albums over time that's immaterial because you used to have to buy the album instead of stream it to provide that revenue to the artist?
Using very general numbers a band could actually only end up seeing $1.25 from an album sale, across 10 tracks that's 0.125 per track. It really doesn't take that many listens over a lifetime of ownership for that to get down to the same scale as the spotify you are raging about. They are not comparable of course which is the irony of you calling the per play immaterial when you just compared a sale to a single stream cost but whatever.
But lets talk about radio, in fact why don't you go and read the blog that was linked by the pandora one. Go on, I'll wait.
http://theunderstatement.com/post/53867665082/pandora-pays-far-more-than-16-dollars
Base d on Lowery’s own numbers AM/FM paid him $1,373.78 for 18,797 spins or 7.3 cents per play. Much higher than 0.0001 but only 70,000 people need to have been listening for it to be pretty much the same. As the blog points out the radio station Pandora just brought manages 18,000 average so if you think that is unattainable by a large nation station you are... weird, frankly. Popular radio shows are listened to in the millions. And this is before we even talk about caps.
You may want to brush that under the carpet as "immaterial" because it's not on demand but under the old label system that on demand 'premium' for artists is even significantly more.
In this day and age there is no question that buying a track directly from an artist via a service like band camp is one of the best thing you can do support that artist. The thing is that the people who want to support you in that way will regardless of if they can stream you and what streaming is doing is providing you a comparable per listen income to radio and even sales and that income is coming from people who may never have been montaised in the same way. This is before we even consider the value of streaming as advertising to grow the fan base who will buy your songs and merch and come to your shows and how streaming is vastly more egalitarian. There are many bands I know who have their songs on streaming services that will likely never, ever, see radio play.
So what have we learned? Per listener radio likely pays vastly less per spin in terms of people listening to that spin and this is purely when we are talking about songwriting royalties vs songwriting royalties because US radio doesn't actually pay performance ones and only for artists big enough to played on radio in the first place. That under the label system artists barely saw a real premium for "on demand access" in the first place and in the new world they can both expand their core fan base and make money from people they may never have made money from otherwise.
But nah, lets just listen to the people representing a dying business model based on charging tolls for passing through a centralised system under their control in a world that has distributed that system and power among the people who actually use it. Nothing can possi-bligh go wrong.
On the post: Microsoft Capitulates, Removes Online DRM From Xbox One
Re: Re: Re:
I could buy this idea more (and don't get me wrong this is something we do see a lot) if Microsoft had done it at their E3 press conference. But they didn't, this seems far more reactionary as a result. I don't think Microsoft would have wasted this press coverage, took a beating on stock prices, handed the narrative over to Sony and took a beating in the eyes of the non-informed gaming public just to sell people on a type of DRM that is, effectively, already widely accepted in services like steam.
Microsoft wanted this, invested in this, expected it to work and had one of the worst console announcements ever as a result.
On the post: The Next Time Someone Says Twitter Is Killing Deep Thinking With Short Quick Messages, Show Them This
Re:
A hundred years from now there will be someone like you, separated from us by thought time and language who will be cherry picking the best and brightest and bemoaning how we no longer talk or think in such ways. You called other people here arrogant for disagreeing with you but the fact is that people are people and there are more people than ever and alive right now are exactly the kind of people that you, born a hundred years from now, would hero worship while ignoring the fact that such people are around you right now thinking great thoughts, producing great works of endless creativity.
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here
I.e. your "is" is irrelevant to my proposed action for the reasons I then stated.
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re: Re: Nothing to see here
On the post: DOJ Says Tech Companies Can Sort Of Release FISA Numbers, But.. In A Way That Decreases Transparency
Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
Take a loopy tour of out_of_the_Blue! You always end up nowhere near the topic at hand!
Where OOTB "I make up connections where none exist" lives up to his name to derail attempts to talk about topics he dislike.
01:36:53[b-297-8]
On the post: Former NSA Whistleblower Bill Binney: The NSA Is Making Itself Dysfunctional With Too Much Data
Re:
On the post: Microsoft Said To Give Zero Day Exploits To US Government Before It Patches Them
Re: Re: Oh, my NON-surprise! Mike omitted GOOGLE'S part:
On the post: Sony At E3: Look How Unlike Microsoft We Are!
Re:
Imagine your dad sold you his car, now imagine if your dad said he would come around once a day to check you haven't messed with the car and if you had he'd take the keys. More imagine he said that if he was unable to come around or if you happened to be out when he came to visit that he would insist you didn't drive the car until he could check it else he'd take the keys. How much do you feel you would own that car?
Microsoft presumes you are going to break the law and is placing restrictions on you for something you've not done. Why the fuck would you want to give people who hold you in such regard money?
On the post: Sony At E3: Look How Unlike Microsoft We Are!
Re: Re: Re:
The only reason for the 24 hour check in is that microsoft presumes that since you can install games you will side load them because you are criminal not a consumer. As a result you are being asked to let them dictate when you can use your console, that you paid $500 for, because you can't be trusted.
Steam allows me to be offline as much as I like and even if steam fails I only lose my ability to play games I have on that service not my ability to play games on my hardware. If microsoft service fails you have a $500 paper weight that can't do anything the device you typed this post on already does.
It's utterly amazing to me that you could be so easily spun.
On the post: Perhaps The NSA Should Figure Out How To Keep Its Own Stuff Secret Before Building A Giant Database
Re: Re: The data might as well be porn.
With enough information it really stops mattering what information you acquire so long as you can relate it to what you already have. Increasing your dataset always comes with the chance of being able to find new value with in it and as computers become more powerful and we build better and better programs for finding patterns and relationships everything starts to matter.
Data mining has already started and it's only going to lead for a rush for data and to find sources and types of data that hold undiscovered value.
It's going to be... interesting...
On the post: Sen. Lindsey Graham, Verizon Customer: I'm GLAD The NSA Is Harvesting My Data. Because Terrorists.
Re: I have to laugh
On the post: Russian 'Pirate' Unofficially Ports Xbox Live Arcade Game To The PC; Moral Conundrums And Fractured English Ensue
Re: Dumb to use morality
One of the points in this video is that the next gen of consoles are going to live or die on exclusive games because they have utterly failed to offer other reasons to buy. There's no big jump in fidelity and the boxes are becoming more like the PC's who price can almost match them.
The market is fundamentally different and the result is exclusive games more than ever feel like they are being held hostage as a way to make you buy into a platform you don't want rather than more reason to buy into one you do.
So in that regard I think there is an argument for this action in that it highlights that people are becoming a little sick of being gated from games they want based on having to choose between platforms that have a huge buy in.
On the post: Microsoft's Attack On Used Game Sales Asks Customers To Sacrifice Their Rights To Save An Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talking of which you are also discounting that possibility that because devs can now sell a lot of stuff that used to be "unlocks" as DLC after the game has come out, often using what would otherwise be down time for content creators during the QA to do so, they don't have to spend as much main development time on these items which could mean more actual content or more polish in the actual game.
Some DLC is exploitative money grubbing but it's not inherently a bad thing.
On the post: Researcher Tries To Connect Violence And Video Games During Murder Trial; Gets Destroyed During Cross Examination
Re: This is a real mania with you 14-year-olds, isn't it?
On the post: More Money, More Problems: The Challenge Of Managing Crowdfunding Success
Re:
On the post: Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum Does Digital Archives Right -- Hi-Res Downloads And A Suite Of Online Editing Tools
Re: "encouraging interaction with the uploaded works"
On the post: Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum Does Digital Archives Right -- Hi-Res Downloads And A Suite Of Online Editing Tools
Re:
Which is not not me precious about art having to be physical. In fact my time at art school was largely about exploring digital work. It's just when something is created in a physical way seeing the physical thing is more often than not seeing it as it was intended and that is a one of the key experiences of art. It's not the only one of course but it remains a reason that going to see art is different than consuming it at home even when it's not a performance.
Next >>