There is no "new market" to compete in. Just pirates, and you cannot compete against them at a price point that will work out. Sorry!
Let's stick to the story instead of attacking straw men. The story is HBO not making their content available to people who are willing to pay for it, and eventually losing these customers to piracy.
There is a "new market" to compete in and they're not competing. That market is Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc. A rapidly growing market I should add.
There probably are many reasons and contractual complications and I'm sure they've crunched the numbers, but the story here is not that they're competing with pirates so let's stop with this "you can't compete with free" nonsense.
Spot on. But that means that's the real problem they need to address. Who's their main customer - the cable companies or the consumers? If the consumers keep running away from cable/satellite they need to adjust their strategy eventually. They can probably find a way to live without the middle man, but they can't live without the end consumer.
That's true, but even if it were enforceable the genie is already out of the bottle. Customers know it's technically possible to get everything they want, at any time, on any medium. You can only dangle that carrot in front of a mule for so long before it bites off your entire hand.
CSI and lots of other high-cost shows still somehow manage to get made despite them being available on Hulu. We're talking about HBO competing with streaming services, not MegaUpload.
When you understand this, you can understand why piracy is not the real issue but a symptom.
Take a look at Hulu's numbers for 2011. Rapid growth in both profit and Hulu+ subscribers - despite all their shows being also available on various pirate sites. I'm sure the numbers look similar for Netflix and Amazon. Only if the pirate sites are the ONLY way to get the content it becomes a real problem.
Call it arrogance, but it's not going away. They're intrinsically linked with cable providers who will continue to lose customers. There has to come a time where they use cable subscriptions to augment their sales of online content rather than the other way around. The sooner they get ready for this the better.
I feel for HBO. They fund exclusive content that's well done and costs a lot of money to produce. They need to make money off this to produce more content. The shows are good and people are willing to pay money, but the problem is that HBO's business model appears to rely on gaining subscribers. By offering exclusive quality content they've no doubt gained many subscribers, but they can't force everybody to subscribe to cable TV just to watch a certain show.
HBO, what are you going to do about the rest of us who will never again subscribe to cable TV? You're not losing sales due to piracy. You're losing sales because you refuse to sell to a sizable chunk of potential customers. It's ridiculous that we have to beg a company to take our money.
As long as the RIAA continues to convince people that they actually represent the music industry as a whole, they will continue to be able to buy legislation "saving" the industry.
They are representing a sizable but shrinking roster of artists. That's all. Yes, there are many big names on the roster, and they account for almost all of the Top 40. I think there is room for a group representing the interest of big name artists, but stop claiming to speak for the entire industry, and stop pushing your agenda at the expense of everybody who isn't part of your club.
That's what I thought when reading this. What's the point of complaining about the "new" model? Who is he trying to convince and what for? Even if he was right and artists would be worse off today than in the old days, that surely won't make the old days come back.
A more productive post from someone like Lowery with all his experience in the music biz would be to give tips for newcomers to make it in the new way of doing business.
That's true, and I'm pretty sure Apple is making a lot more money off a sale than traditional retailers. However, they're also providing a much larger audience and effectively eliminate the role of distributor. It used to be difficult to even get your product into the shelves of traditional retailers. Nowadays that's as easy as uploading your song to iTunes. What's left is the marketing. That's by far the hardest part and has always been, but that does not diminish the value iTunes et al provide.
I wouldn't hold my breath. Yes, Google is a company driven by engineers, and engineers hate software patents, but in the end these kind of decisions are made by lawyers. Google did well to complain about patent laws while their portfolio was comparatively puny, but with the acquisition of so many valuable patents that strategy may well be shifting.
Completely missing the point. Of course both could be possible, but they're different approaches to solving a problem. He is asking which approach makes more sense. Do we focus on the perceived cause of a problem without knowing to what degree they are related, and even in what way they are related, or do we work on innovative ways to get the desired outcome? Hence it is presented as an either/or choice.
DRM, SOPA, and law suits against individual file sharers are all examples of focusing on piracy. Services like Spotify, iTunes, and Hulu are examples of focusing on the desired outcome. I would argue these services have already demonstrated that they're successful in selling more content while also automagically reducing piracy because it might just be a symptom rather than the cause.
You're making assumptions about something you don't even know enough about to get the most basic facts straight. Just having read a single news article about this you'd know that nothing you're saying has actually happened.
I didn't read it verbatim, but I got that from the Wired article:
The indictment claims it induced users to upload copyrighted works for others to download, that it often failed to comply with removal notices from rights holders.
The money laundering charges are connected to allegations Megaupload paid users for uploading infringing content.
I'm not sure what they base these claims on specifically as I don't really have any idea how that site operated.
The difference is apparently that they're suspected of not following DMCA procedures and encouraging (through incentives) illegal content uploads. I don't know if that's true, but I can see why they go after them first.
I also feel that the timing had to do with them making moves towards becoming a legitimate business in direct competition to RIAA. Better squash them before they become too big/successful. That's the real fear of the industry gatekeepers: legitimate competition. As long as they're just dirty pirates they actually serve a purpose as a scapegoat.
Unfortunately I think you're right about this. Obama's campaign strategy for re-election seems to be going on full confrontation course with congress. SOPA is just a small part of this. It's a sound strategy of course, but as far as SOPA is concerned it's unfortunately just a cynical ploy.
I think it's not so much aimed directly at legislators as it is aimed at the companies who are playing by the rules. The companies who pay for all their licenses tend to be the larger and more influential ones, so by giving them some fodder for being outraged, MS can indirectly influence legislation.
They're basically trying to make their paying customers fight piracy on their behalf, but I can see how it could backfire.
I wonder when the big corporations begin to understand that paying up is going to cost them more in the long term than fighting every single one of these frivolous charges. Where do they think these payments go? That's right, into bankrolling the next law suits and gobbling up some more questionable patents to use in future attacks.
Companies that actually do invent would be better off in the long term if they'd just band together and lobby for substantial changes to patent law. The nuclear stand-off tactic of "defensive" patents only somewhat works if all parties have something to lose.
no matter how long a clip? really?
As long as they don't reproduce the original song to a point where it may be mistaken for the original and claim it their own it is fair use in my book. Negativland were famous for deconstructing popular songs and turning them into something else entirely, and they too got into legal trouble more than once, but the only time they got really slammed was for album artwork that might be misconstrued for an U2 album.
Musicians need to take their heads out of their ass once in a while and realize that it's not only the idea that counts. If people wanted to listen to the original song they would.
uhm, ok. So how about this then: the ruling itself makes headlines and thereby exposes the band to further exposure. According to your logic, the judge should factor that into the equation, and because the higher the punishment is the more press and exposure the band gets, this will recursively spin out of control until the band either owes all the money in the world or the judge's head explodes.
On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's stick to the story instead of attacking straw men. The story is HBO not making their content available to people who are willing to pay for it, and eventually losing these customers to piracy.
There is a "new market" to compete in and they're not competing. That market is Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc. A rapidly growing market I should add.
There probably are many reasons and contractual complications and I'm sure they've crunched the numbers, but the story here is not that they're competing with pirates so let's stop with this "you can't compete with free" nonsense.
On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps
Re: Re: Re: But still...
On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps
Re: Re: Re:
When you understand this, you can understand why piracy is not the real issue but a symptom.
Take a look at Hulu's numbers for 2011. Rapid growth in both profit and Hulu+ subscribers - despite all their shows being also available on various pirate sites. I'm sure the numbers look similar for Netflix and Amazon. Only if the pirate sites are the ONLY way to get the content it becomes a real problem.
On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps
Re:
On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps
Re: I was doing this 4 hours ago
HBO, what are you going to do about the rest of us who will never again subscribe to cable TV? You're not losing sales due to piracy. You're losing sales because you refuse to sell to a sizable chunk of potential customers. It's ridiculous that we have to beg a company to take our money.
On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing
Re:
They are representing a sizable but shrinking roster of artists. That's all. Yes, there are many big names on the roster, and they account for almost all of the Top 40. I think there is room for a group representing the interest of big name artists, but stop claiming to speak for the entire industry, and stop pushing your agenda at the expense of everybody who isn't part of your club.
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: Ummm..
A more productive post from someone like Lowery with all his experience in the music biz would be to give tips for newcomers to make it in the new way of doing business.
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:
On the post: If Google Is Serious About Reforming Patent Mess, It Should Make A Bold Statement And Stop Using Motorola Patents To Demand Cash
Offense is the new defense
On the post: Is The 'Legislative Solution' To Online Infringement To Create A Content Use Registry?
Re:
DRM, SOPA, and law suits against individual file sharers are all examples of focusing on piracy. Services like Spotify, iTunes, and Hulu are examples of focusing on the desired outcome. I would argue these services have already demonstrated that they're successful in selling more content while also automagically reducing piracy because it might just be a symptom rather than the cause.
On the post: TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC
Re:
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Insanity Wolf
I'm not sure what they base these claims on specifically as I don't really have any idea how that site operated.
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Insanity Wolf
I also feel that the timing had to do with them making moves towards becoming a legitimate business in direct competition to RIAA. Better squash them before they become too big/successful. That's the real fear of the industry gatekeepers: legitimate competition. As long as they're just dirty pirates they actually serve a purpose as a scapegoat.
On the post: White House Comes Out Against The Approach In SOPA/PIPA In Response To Online Petition
Re:
Obama Job Approval: 45%
Congressional Job Approval: 13%
Easiest way to pander? Oppose anything Congress does, especially high-profile contentious issues.
On the post: White House Comes Out Against The Approach In SOPA/PIPA In Response To Online Petition
Re:
On the post: Microsoft 'Anti-Piracy' Campaign Explains Why It's Bad For Businesses To Pay For Microsoft Software
Re:
They're basically trying to make their paying customers fight piracy on their behalf, but I can see how it could backfire.
On the post: Failed Company, Now Patent Troll, Sues Apple Over Transferrable Playlists For A Third Time
Companies that actually do invent would be better off in the long term if they'd just band together and lobby for substantial changes to patent law. The nuclear stand-off tactic of "defensive" patents only somewhat works if all parties have something to lose.
On the post: Insanity: Judge Rules That Copyright Holder Of 10-Second Sample Deserves 84% Of The Royalties
Re: Re:
As long as they don't reproduce the original song to a point where it may be mistaken for the original and claim it their own it is fair use in my book. Negativland were famous for deconstructing popular songs and turning them into something else entirely, and they too got into legal trouble more than once, but the only time they got really slammed was for album artwork that might be misconstrued for an U2 album.
Musicians need to take their heads out of their ass once in a while and realize that it's not only the idea that counts. If people wanted to listen to the original song they would.
On the post: Insanity: Judge Rules That Copyright Holder Of 10-Second Sample Deserves 84% Of The Royalties
Re:
Next >>