I went to a live show here in Boston. The group I wanted to see was second to last. After the show they came out into the audience and hung out with us listening to the music. You felt a little awkward trying to start a conversation...but even if you didn't do that it was neat to see them hanging out and enjoying the music. It was very memorable. I thought, "this is the way to do it." They connected...now had they been the closer, I am not sure if we would have gotten the same thing, and if the venue hadn't have been a small club (probably fewer than 150) it would have been different, but still.
I said when they first announced it that only Apple can make a price increase a price decrease. They tried to convince me that they were dropping prices, but in reality this is raising it.
I like variable pricing. I was a huge fan of Allofmp3 when it was available. That is the lesson the music industry needs to follow. The price should be far lower and variable by quality of music not whether it has DRM or not. Get with it people.
This is absurd "We pay for the content. We should be able to get it where we want it, and when we want it. Those who want it for free ? They should pay too. "
No you don't get the content where you want or when you want. You get it where cable wants it and when the TV stations want you to have it. If you go stream it online for free you get it where you want and when you want. Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure that one out.
Right now I get basic cable and that is it, and I don't pay a dime for the first year. $10 is about all I can stomach to pay for television. So when the time comes for me to pay there is a good chance we'll just drop it, now huge reason for that is because of all the online streaming we can do, but without that streaming I know we wouldn't do any over the basic cable.
So the obvious question here is this guy paid for by cable companies?
Do you really need to crack the system? I mean unless you really want to get your hands on 500 stations showing reruns of the cosby show and full house you can stream just about everything else. I think their bigger concerns moving forward aren't going to be piracy of the dish network, but legal streaming of the content they provide. This is the same with cable as well. I can't stomach paying over $20 for a good many stations that I'll never watch. You get all those stations and there is still nothing on when you need it. No I am happy streaming the majority of my TV and honestly I already watch too much.
I have to admit I just don't buy DVD's and very rarely view the extras. I usually just want to watch the DVD, return the movie, and that is it. I own less than 10 DVD's. Now if it was a funny movie and they have a gag reel or something I might watch, but generally don't poor over extras. I understand the people that do I just don't. So this move won't really be noticed by me. I mean I might see that there aren't any extras, but it won't bother me.
My question is if the extras aren't there does that mean we don't get the previews? Cause that would be just plain awesome. Most DVD's put that in the extras so my logic stands right...no extras=no previews.
I do read one printed news paper. It is free and handed to me as I get on the Subway. The only reason I read this is because I don't have an internet connection for a good majority of the trip. If I am at home or somewhere with an internet connection and the news is right in front of me on a screen why on earth would I print it? I see very little value in this at all. Crazy talk and doomed to fail.
Honestly I would be willing to pay full price for my phone if I could take it to any network and use it. $500, $800 yea sure why not. Honestly the competition between handset makers will likely drive the price down for all but the sexiest of phones (iPhone Palm pre ect). So I support breaking the lockin even if that meant paying more for the handset.
Politicians don't need sound logic they need money.
A funny thing I saw on Twitter the other day was: Politicians need to wear NASCAR like suites so they can advertise what corporation they are funded by. Wouldn't that be nice.
Man I don't know, but I am pretty sure that my ISP in US is not blocking any of those sites and I blissfully avoid them every time I am on the internet. I think child porn is reprehensibly, but is it so prevalent in their society that it warrants a universal block aid of it? Not everyone on the internet is a nefarious lowlife. Stop treating them like kids and go after the real problem (which is to say go after the nefarious lowlifes).
I don't know what cities they run in, but in Boston there is the metro news publication (I know they have them in NYC). I was thinking about it this morning. Metro gives away their paper for free. It is pretty handy for me walk in to my T stop in the morning on my way to work and someone is there handing them out. Since there is a good chunk of my trip underground without cell reception I am left with listening to music, playing a game, or reading the news. They always have great information about local happenings. So I am looking around and I'd say at worst it is every 3rd person has a paper, but some mornings every other and I'm talking about full cars.
Now I obviously don't know what their business model is nor how well they are doing, but to have so many people reading their print says something for a business model. And for sure if you want to advertise in Boston that is a good way to do it.
Don't know exactly where I was going with this other than to say they are doing something right. The one slight unfortunate thing is their online presence is very lacking, but then again that isn't their target audience is it? http://www.metro.us/us/home/
Your final paragraph shows just why this is so absurd. I was working to put Boxee in place at home, and probably still will, but for Hulu content I can simply kill boxee and watch it via FF on my computer. Once the stream is full screen it probably won't look a bit different. Are the content owners really that dense? This is absolutely absurd.
This is interesting, all of this is about raising revenue because of huge deficits. It seems that the governor is brainstorming and all of it gets reported. The latest is that he wants to do a variable registration price per car. You wanna know who pays more? "Gas Guzzlers." So the idea is that if you have a gas guzzler you should pay more, but that is absurd because since it uses more gas they are already paying more. Of course the governor will be able to say he is a "green" governor and tried to ween the evil SUV owner from his wicked ways. As of now there are no details what constitutes a "gas guzzler," but the whole thing seems absurd.
As of the last few weeks there have been tons of ideas proposed to raise revenue, which is what leads me to believe that he is just brainstorming.
The media here in Boston has done a pretty good job trying to paint this in the best possible light. I am not convinced. I just moved to the state and it just goes beyond what I am comfortable with. It is a sad state of affairs here in MA especially with huge deficits. I think a big reason why people get the more gas efficient cars is because it saves them money, if this is to combat the lack of gas tax than it kind of defeats the purpose in buying gas efficient cars, but the state tries to bill itself as a green progressive state...maybe it is just a little too progressive for my blood.
I have been using Twitter for a while now and love it. I think its best use is for celebs to connect with fans. @coldpay is on it and the person giving updates will often let you know of the latest news or just what is going on. You also have funny celebs that use it to give 140 character funny notes. The potential is endless. On my end I don't have fans to connect to, but I find common interests with other people so it becomes a conversation of sorts.
The Boston T is starting to do this as well, though I don't think plans have been finalized. Unfortunately for me it is only for the Commuter Rail at the moment. I would like this because especially in Cambridge there are a few spots where you don't get any cell reception, but I would be happy on wifi. I hope it works out.
Go after the investors to put pressure on the company
It is likely Universal is just trying to put pressure on the investors to make the company crack and give in. Also if they sue the investors (even though it didn't go through) it has a ripple effect discouraging any other investors. So as absurd as it is my guess is Universal knows that it is absurd, but is just trying to send a message. Not that any of this isn't obvious, I just felt the need to state.
Oh that is a good ending, FTW!!!!! You strike back with a little bit of venom. So good.
The quote: "I find their suggestions are unbelievably arrogant and self-serving." I just have to say he seems like an incredible arrogant and self-serving SOB imo.
Wow this is unbelievable, beyond that. Crazy, how do they expect their music to spread and be loved by anyone if they are this draconian. This makes me want to get a loud speaker just to spite them.
On the post: Bands That Take Selling Seriously
Live shows
On the post: Music Industry Folks Worried About iTunes Variable Pricing
I agree this is a bad move
I like variable pricing. I was a huge fan of Allofmp3 when it was available. That is the lesson the music industry needs to follow. The price should be far lower and variable by quality of music not whether it has DRM or not. Get with it people.
On the post: Mark Cuban Declares War On Free TV Online... But Misses Out On The Economics
moral outrage absurd
No you don't get the content where you want or when you want. You get it where cable wants it and when the TV stations want you to have it. If you go stream it online for free you get it where you want and when you want. Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure that one out.
Right now I get basic cable and that is it, and I don't pay a dime for the first year. $10 is about all I can stomach to pay for television. So when the time comes for me to pay there is a good chance we'll just drop it, now huge reason for that is because of all the online streaming we can do, but without that streaming I know we wouldn't do any over the basic cable.
So the obvious question here is this guy paid for by cable companies?
On the post: Why Do Newspapers Keep Publishing Bogus Piracy Numbers From Lobbyists As Fact?
Streaming legal content should be a bigger worry
On the post: If Your Business Model Revolves Around Taking Some Feature Away From People, You're Doing It Wrong
DVD Extras?
My question is if the extras aren't there does that mean we don't get the previews? Cause that would be just plain awesome. Most DVD's put that in the extras so my logic stands right...no extras=no previews.
On the post: Will Newspapers Start Selling Special Printers Now?
People would actually do this?
On the post: Groups Again Take Aim At Cellphone Subsidies
I'm willing to pay
On the post: Amazon Gives In To Ridiculous Authors Guild Claim: Allows Authors To Block Text-To-Speech
banged my head too much
On the post: Recording Industry, Politicians Continue To Give Bogus Reasons To Support 3 Strikes In New Zealand
Worrisome
A funny thing I saw on Twitter the other day was: Politicians need to wear NASCAR like suites so they can advertise what corporation they are funded by. Wouldn't that be nice.
On the post: British Charities Discover Web Filters Don't Work
Is Child Porn that prevalent in UK?
On the post: Associated Press Considers Locking Up Its Online Content
metro news
Now I obviously don't know what their business model is nor how well they are doing, but to have so many people reading their print says something for a business model. And for sure if you want to advertise in Boston that is a good way to do it.
Don't know exactly where I was going with this other than to say they are doing something right. The one slight unfortunate thing is their online presence is very lacking, but then again that isn't their target audience is it? http://www.metro.us/us/home/
On the post: Hollywood Shoots Itself In The Foot... Again; Removes Content From Boxee
That is what is so absurd
On the post: Massachusetts Wants GPS Driving Tax, Too
Lastest from MA
As of the last few weeks there have been tons of ideas proposed to raise revenue, which is what leads me to believe that he is just brainstorming.
On the post: Massachusetts Wants GPS Driving Tax, Too
Re: Re: Boston Media
On the post: Massachusetts Wants GPS Driving Tax, Too
Boston Media
On the post: Using Twitter For Participatory Politics
Twitter is a great tool
I really like the medium and see a lot of potential. Just the other day I tweeted about using twitter for more than just status updates http://twitter.com/mark_rosedale/statuses/1195798678
On the post: BART WiFi -- Is It Different Than Muni WiFi?
Boston T
On the post: Universal Music Group Slapped Down (Again) In Case Against Veoh
Go after the investors to put pressure on the company
On the post: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
Love the ending
The quote: "I find their suggestions are unbelievably arrogant and self-serving." I just have to say he seems like an incredible arrogant and self-serving SOB imo.
On the post: Performance Rights Society Calls Small Businesses & Threatens Them Over Music Heard In The Background
Beyond unbelievable
Next >>