"But newspapers are vital to our democracy, and they are truly in deep trouble because the ad-supported model doesn't work"
What the hell are you talking about? How are newsPAPERS vital to our democracy? Why does the news HAVE to be printed on paper for it to work? Why doesn't it work if these same exact people put their content on newsSITES instead of newsPAPERS?
And goddamit the ad-revenue model sure as shit worked for the past 200 years. People, please stop pretending that subscription costs have EVER gone to ANYTHING other than the cost of printing and distribution. W/the internet, there IS no cost of printing and distribution.
"Now, it seems to me that B/S cannot deliver the income as soon as it comes in. They probably have a payment schedule."
I, for one, would be EXTREMELY interested to get the details on this. For instance, do they reconcile every month (like most businesses do, on a net-30 schedule)? Every quarter? Every year? Also, what is their methodology for seeking out artists to pay them? As I noted elsewhere, SoundExchange couldn't seem to find Uncle Kracker for payment. Uncle Kracker.....
"However, between the moment they receive the money and the moment they distribute it, it would be somewhat silly to stick it in a checking account at 0.04% wouldn't it?"
....Why? The yield on a checking/savings account isn't particularly good, but on the other hand it CAN'T FUCKING GO DOWN, YOU TWAT! Ahem, sorry. Again, this is NOT they're money, by their own admission. What possible justification is there for using SOMEONE ELSE'S money in a way that could potentiall devalue it?
"It's not gambling, it's just logical."
Ok, seriously, what country are you from? It CAN'T be America. The stock market is a gamble, end of story. It can be a stupid gamble, a complete gamble, an educated gamble, or even a reasonable gamble, but it is ALWAYS a gamble.
"I admire what Radiohead have done tremendously in seeking a new model. They would take the view, and I would share it, that perhaps price has been a big problem for the music business."
Outstanding, because we agree, and since we, the consumer, dictate the price eventually anyway, you'd do well to listen: the price for recorded music is zero. More importantly, it always HAS been zero. No one has EVER charged me for the product of music, they've charged me for CDs and the right to download. Otherwise, I'd have been charged when I've listened to music off of CDs owned by others.
"The music business has tried to hold onto a price that was unrealistic for a long time now. I think wider distribution of lower priced things is probably the future."
Probably? PROBABLY!!?? And what do you mean by future? If by future you mean five years ago, then yes, I agree.
"It's important to remember that the traditional worldwide star-making functions of the big record companies. There's nothing on the horizon to replace that."
Ok, McStupid, listen carefully: GOOD! I don't need you telling me who the stars are, I'll decide that for myself. Your corporate packaged garbage sucks, end of story. Until you find me ONE Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, etc. in pop music today, I'd rather turn the "star-making functions" of the record companies over to the common people, where word of mouth and higher download counts will equal true star quality.
"I would really like them to willingly go to the movie studios and the music companies and say this is how we can collect money from the people who are listening to your stuff and watching your movies. We acknowledge that it's the fair thing to do and we have some responsibility for doing it. Let's do it together and let's make some money."
Who's them, the ISPs? You want Comcast to come to me and charge me for your product? And how are you going to determine who pays and who doesn't? Do the people downloading w/o infringing have to pay Comcast? What about those that don't download music at all one way or the other? Or people/businesses that have unencrypted wireless networks, what do THEY have to pay? Or maybe this idea is just dumb.
"Artists are entitled to get paid, whatever kind of art they do, the same way technologists are entitled to get paid."
Again, we agree, artists ARE entitled to get paid the same way technologists are: they aren't. They aren't ENTITLED to get paid, the get paid for performing a service or producing a tangible product. Artists get paid the same way - Service: concerts, appearences, etc., Tangible Product: Tshirts, album art, etc. - FYI, recorded music isn't EITHER.
"I'd like to get a moral tone into the discussion. I think there is a big moral question for civilization."
....What? Do I really have to listen to someone from Rock & Roll music lecture me on morality? Tell you what, Skeeter, since morality is a completely subjective and cultural issue, how about we just leave that one alone. Or maybe we should apply Native American morality which said that one cannot own land or property since it all belongs to nature anyway, ergo you don't OWN anything, least of all copyright. Idiot.
"I hope that our politicians, our journalists our media gain a sense of how much we stand to lose if free prevails. Ultimately free is the enemy of good."
Coming from an Irishmen, just throw a "dom" on the end of "free" and this becomes HYSTERICAL.
"You would think anti-trust lawyers would have advised them not to collude in the first place"
You don't know enough lawyers, or at least business lawyers. They won't advise them not to collude, they'll advise the HOW to collude and not get caught.
....okay, how does any of that put any culpability whatsoever on videogames?
Further, if Parents A and B leave irresponsible teen kid C home with lil chitlins D and E, there should still be a value for F (F = which federal pen the parents are locked up in FOR BEING AND RAISING FUCKING MORONS GODDAMIT.....ahem, sorry)?
On the post: EFF Launches Copyright Curriculum To Counter RIAA Propaganda Being Handed Out To Schools
Re:
....you're whole family is gay, and of ugly stock. Now go away, ninny-headed pigdog, or I shall taunt you a second time.
Plus, if you're going to try to sound tough/cool/whatever by using Italian words, let's try to spell them correctly. Sound good there, Skeeter?
On the post: Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls
Re: Re:
What the hell are you talking about? How are newsPAPERS vital to our democracy? Why does the news HAVE to be printed on paper for it to work? Why doesn't it work if these same exact people put their content on newsSITES instead of newsPAPERS?
And goddamit the ad-revenue model sure as shit worked for the past 200 years. People, please stop pretending that subscription costs have EVER gone to ANYTHING other than the cost of printing and distribution. W/the internet, there IS no cost of printing and distribution.
On the post: News Corp. Digital Boss Says Free Doesn't Work, Doesn't Bother To Explain How Pay Will Work
Re: The Goog...
On the post: Since When Is Driving With Infringing DVDs A Crime?
Re: Re: Illinois
You just wouldn't get great fried chicken...
On the post: Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls
Re: Re:
Hahaha, typo for truth of the day.
It is conclusion, of their industry...
On the post: Why Should Mattel Get Future Plans For New Bratz Dolls?
Re: Re: Re: The Facts
On the post: Dutch Music Collection Society Loses Artist Royalties In The Stock Market
Re: Time-Value of Money
I, for one, would be EXTREMELY interested to get the details on this. For instance, do they reconcile every month (like most businesses do, on a net-30 schedule)? Every quarter? Every year? Also, what is their methodology for seeking out artists to pay them? As I noted elsewhere, SoundExchange couldn't seem to find Uncle Kracker for payment. Uncle Kracker.....
"However, between the moment they receive the money and the moment they distribute it, it would be somewhat silly to stick it in a checking account at 0.04% wouldn't it?"
....Why? The yield on a checking/savings account isn't particularly good, but on the other hand it CAN'T FUCKING GO DOWN, YOU TWAT! Ahem, sorry. Again, this is NOT they're money, by their own admission. What possible justification is there for using SOMEONE ELSE'S money in a way that could potentiall devalue it?
"It's not gambling, it's just logical."
Ok, seriously, what country are you from? It CAN'T be America. The stock market is a gamble, end of story. It can be a stupid gamble, a complete gamble, an educated gamble, or even a reasonable gamble, but it is ALWAYS a gamble.
On the post: U2 Manager: Free Is The Enemy Of Good; And It's Moral To Protect Old Business Models
Re: I hope they do enact an ISP tax...
Actually, via a point Mike has tried to educate people on repeatedly, you won't.
$2/month > $0.00 x 1000
On the post: U2 Manager: Free Is The Enemy Of Good; And It's Moral To Protect Old Business Models
Re:
On the post: U2 Manager: Free Is The Enemy Of Good; And It's Moral To Protect Old Business Models
Irish McJackass's comments
Outstanding, because we agree, and since we, the consumer, dictate the price eventually anyway, you'd do well to listen: the price for recorded music is zero. More importantly, it always HAS been zero. No one has EVER charged me for the product of music, they've charged me for CDs and the right to download. Otherwise, I'd have been charged when I've listened to music off of CDs owned by others.
"The music business has tried to hold onto a price that was unrealistic for a long time now. I think wider distribution of lower priced things is probably the future."
Probably? PROBABLY!!?? And what do you mean by future? If by future you mean five years ago, then yes, I agree.
"It's important to remember that the traditional worldwide star-making functions of the big record companies. There's nothing on the horizon to replace that."
Ok, McStupid, listen carefully: GOOD! I don't need you telling me who the stars are, I'll decide that for myself. Your corporate packaged garbage sucks, end of story. Until you find me ONE Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, etc. in pop music today, I'd rather turn the "star-making functions" of the record companies over to the common people, where word of mouth and higher download counts will equal true star quality.
"I would really like them to willingly go to the movie studios and the music companies and say this is how we can collect money from the people who are listening to your stuff and watching your movies. We acknowledge that it's the fair thing to do and we have some responsibility for doing it. Let's do it together and let's make some money."
Who's them, the ISPs? You want Comcast to come to me and charge me for your product? And how are you going to determine who pays and who doesn't? Do the people downloading w/o infringing have to pay Comcast? What about those that don't download music at all one way or the other? Or people/businesses that have unencrypted wireless networks, what do THEY have to pay? Or maybe this idea is just dumb.
"Artists are entitled to get paid, whatever kind of art they do, the same way technologists are entitled to get paid."
Again, we agree, artists ARE entitled to get paid the same way technologists are: they aren't. They aren't ENTITLED to get paid, the get paid for performing a service or producing a tangible product. Artists get paid the same way - Service: concerts, appearences, etc., Tangible Product: Tshirts, album art, etc. - FYI, recorded music isn't EITHER.
"I'd like to get a moral tone into the discussion. I think there is a big moral question for civilization."
....What? Do I really have to listen to someone from Rock & Roll music lecture me on morality? Tell you what, Skeeter, since morality is a completely subjective and cultural issue, how about we just leave that one alone. Or maybe we should apply Native American morality which said that one cannot own land or property since it all belongs to nature anyway, ergo you don't OWN anything, least of all copyright. Idiot.
"I hope that our politicians, our journalists our media gain a sense of how much we stand to lose if free prevails. Ultimately free is the enemy of good."
Coming from an Irishmen, just throw a "dom" on the end of "free" and this becomes HYSTERICAL.
On the post: Why Should Mattel Get Future Plans For New Bratz Dolls?
Yay! American Slavery: An equal opportunity employer...
On the post: Why Should Mattel Get Future Plans For New Bratz Dolls?
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Should Mattel Get Future Plans For New Bratz Dolls?
They're NOT dolls, they're action figure collectables...
On the post: Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls
Re: What did the lawyers do?
You don't know enough lawyers, or at least business lawyers. They won't advise them not to collude, they'll advise the HOW to collude and not get caught.
On the post: Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls
Name Game
This group needs a good, old fashioned conspiracy name. The "Paperburgs"? The "Newseratti"? "Murdoch & Friends"?
On the post: EFF Launches Copyright Curriculum To Counter RIAA Propaganda Being Handed Out To Schools
Re:
Dude....your wife's totally gay...
On the post: Prolific And Influential Swedish Author Throws Support Behind The Pirate Party
Re: Re: Re: Amazing...
On the post: The Conference Board Of Canada Recalls Three IP Reports; Admits Plagiarism
Re: Canadian Travel made easy
On the post: Police Blame Video Games For 2-Year-Old Stabbing 5-Month-Old
Re: Think About It
Further, if Parents A and B leave irresponsible teen kid C home with lil chitlins D and E, there should still be a value for F (F = which federal pen the parents are locked up in FOR BEING AND RAISING FUCKING MORONS GODDAMIT.....ahem, sorry)?
On the post: Police Blame Video Games For 2-Year-Old Stabbing 5-Month-Old
Re:
Next >>