"Why is it so hard for the industry to have a discussion in public?"
Maybe because, if the discussion was held in public, the content producers might actually see how much they were getting shafted.
Or maybe it's because the **AA doesn't WANT to change, and is trying to negotiate their way back to 1990, before the world changed.
Or maybe it's because a public discussion might make people see how much of the pain in getting anything done is caused by parasitic entities trying to justify their own existence.
Do content producers *really* need the **AA to produce great art? or is it just easier to put up with them than it is to go it alone?
Seriously - the only reasons that I can see for voting for this bill is either total dumbfounding ignorance, or to get the $upport of the entertainment industries.
I see something like this, it makes me want to watch the movie "Thank You for Smoking" again. They can say these things, but it's up to elected representatives to resist the urge (lobbying $$$) to capitulate to them. Canada has had mandatory health warnings for years now - cigarettes still sell. (They are, admittedly, a lot uglier now, tho...)
Last time I checked, most of the affected schools were *universities*. Most of the students, therefore, are ADULTs, not children. Minor point, I admit, but it still bugged me.
I hate it when people cry "think of the children" unnecessarily.
To be clear, that wasn't a government body that banned the song - it was the broadcasters' self-regulatory body. The government body (the CRTC) wrote them a response after public outcry and told them to revisit the situation.
Let's see - moving bits from servers to users, minimal cost.
Moving disks from warehouse to users, high cost.
Getting disks back from users - somewhat unreliable.
Getting streamed data back from users - not needed.
Maybe Netflix wants to get out of the business of shipping plastic disks all over the US, and are trying to split the two features, so that they can alter the price of that component without affecting the critical mass of streaming customers. (After all, I can't help but think that any business that revolves around moving data from place to place on shiny plastic disks is doomed in the long run.)
"I don't think anyone can come up with a valid music business model that has as many dollars in it as the music industry does today."
Even if there isn't a new business model that has as many dollars in it, the model they're using right now is fast disappearing. They can choose to stay on the sinking ship, or to get onto the lifeboats and survive. Raging about how they want to go back to 1990, when things were wonderful for them, isn't going to change the fact that their distribution business is NOT needed by consumers any more.
They used to have the monopoly on recording studios, but albums are now being cut in bedrooms, with cheap, high quality equipment. They used to have a monopoly on pressing LPs, but now anybody can make a CD in their home computer. They used to have a monopoly on distribution of plastic disks, but now there's a network and a format the remove that need.
The future of the music business is content recommendation and identification - not in distribution or production. The market has already solved those problems.
Love the irony - in fact, it's far easier for Canadian companies to open branches in the US than it is to deliver over the border, too. Customs and licensing is a pain for goods going both ways.
That being said, it's completely within the rights of every country to impose whatever rules they feel necessary/desirable on imports. And it's within the rights of every company to license their goods using whatever criteria they feel will best benefit their bottom line. No matter how stupid it seems to the rest of us. :)
"The vast majority of major newspapers are NOT free."
What's your point?
Ads pay for much of the cost newspaper production and distribution.
Subscription pays for part of newspaper production and distribution.
I don't see too many newspapers that are ad free.
I see tons of examples of newspapers that are subscription free.
Which one do YOU think provides more money?
Adapt or die - that's the choices facing the NY Times, WaPo, and the Toronto Sun. (However, I would only miss two of the three of these - guess which ones!)
Re: I'm not saying it was aliens, but...
(untitled comment)
Maybe because, if the discussion was held in public, the content producers might actually see how much they were getting shafted.
Or maybe it's because the **AA doesn't WANT to change, and is trying to negotiate their way back to 1990, before the world changed.
Or maybe it's because a public discussion might make people see how much of the pain in getting anything done is caused by parasitic entities trying to justify their own existence.
Do content producers *really* need the **AA to produce great art? or is it just easier to put up with them than it is to go it alone?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re:
And if they don't pass the laws that their contributors want, how will they justify asking for more donations next campaign cycle?
And if they don't have the contributions, how can they tell the folks in their district how much they got done for them?
And if they don't tell people how great they are, how will they ever get re-elected?
Hmmmm - I think we have a problem here...
What SOPA actually stands for...
Seriously - the only reasons that I can see for voting for this bill is either total dumbfounding ignorance, or to get the $upport of the entertainment industries.
Re: Re:
Yes - because EVERYTHING is black or white.
Polarization sucks!
Every time...
Re: Re: Re: Re: The thin blue line
Re: Re: Re: The thin blue line
We don't NEED no Stinkin' BADGES!!!!
Children? What children?
I hate it when people cry "think of the children" unnecessarily.
Re: Just another day at the scientific office
It's called the preponderance of evidence.
And besides, the best solution to bad speech is more good speech.
Re:
To be clear, that wasn't a government body that banned the song - it was the broadcasters' self-regulatory body. The government body (the CRTC) wrote them a response after public outcry and told them to revisit the situation.
Re: Re:
;-)
Maybe they want to wean folks off the DVD rental portion?
Moving disks from warehouse to users, high cost.
Getting disks back from users - somewhat unreliable.
Getting streamed data back from users - not needed.
Maybe Netflix wants to get out of the business of shipping plastic disks all over the US, and are trying to split the two features, so that they can alter the price of that component without affecting the critical mass of streaming customers. (After all, I can't help but think that any business that revolves around moving data from place to place on shiny plastic disks is doomed in the long run.)
Re: Re: Re:
Even if there isn't a new business model that has as many dollars in it, the model they're using right now is fast disappearing. They can choose to stay on the sinking ship, or to get onto the lifeboats and survive. Raging about how they want to go back to 1990, when things were wonderful for them, isn't going to change the fact that their distribution business is NOT needed by consumers any more.
They used to have the monopoly on recording studios, but albums are now being cut in bedrooms, with cheap, high quality equipment. They used to have a monopoly on pressing LPs, but now anybody can make a CD in their home computer. They used to have a monopoly on distribution of plastic disks, but now there's a network and a format the remove that need.
The future of the music business is content recommendation and identification - not in distribution or production. The market has already solved those problems.
Re: tips
If a police officer is intimidated by having a camera pointed at them, perhaps they aren't suited to being a police officer.
Re: Re: How far is too far?
Re: Re:
That being said, it's completely within the rights of every country to impose whatever rules they feel necessary/desirable on imports. And it's within the rights of every company to license their goods using whatever criteria they feel will best benefit their bottom line. No matter how stupid it seems to the rest of us. :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's your point?
Ads pay for much of the cost newspaper production and distribution.
Subscription pays for part of newspaper production and distribution.
I don't see too many newspapers that are ad free.
I see tons of examples of newspapers that are subscription free.
Which one do YOU think provides more money?
Adapt or die - that's the choices facing the NY Times, WaPo, and the Toronto Sun. (However, I would only miss two of the three of these - guess which ones!)
Re: Re: Re:
Funny - I picked up a copy of Eye Weekly in Toronto today. Cost me nothing. AFAIK, it has never cost the reader anything.
Lots of ads inside, though - wonder how they're getting paid...
More comments from Punmaster >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Punmaster.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt