what these guys did made sense as well as money. dont expect anything similar from the major studios or labels. they’re interested in the making money part but as for the using sense part being required in this sort of instance, it’s gonna be a no-no

And that SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP are all bullshit one-sided “laws” that would be very bad, and very unconstitutional.

Oh, the “wonders of copyright and DRM” indeed, restricting customer and consumer rights till the point where you’re forced to buy a game again after three installs…

That’s why a lot of what is produced by major studios is rubbish. The bean counters have all the control and everything must be packaged in a nice wee mass marketable bundle instead of allowing creativity to flow unabated.

This is not legitimate royalty-payment money. This is fuck-the-movie-studios, thumb-your-nose-at-copyright money. To suggest that anybody other than pirates and pirate sympathizers could make money in this way is just … dreaming. Wait until you can show us a legitimate movie making money this way, then maybe we’ll listen.

Ultimately, this sort of money is really just as bad as piracy.

A cookbook going with a movie about food is clearly an interactive extra. So it’s safe to assume porn would also have “interactive extras.” haha.

Nice attempt to dismiss.

I am not trying to shoot down anything – I am only trying to make light of what is REALLY going on here. Did the movie make money? Some, but much of the money appears to have been made selling cook books. Might they have had an even bigger success using infomercials, or appear on Coast to Coast AM?

We will never know – but we do know what business they are in, and it isn’t selling movies.

. . . Not to mention, 453,841 people saw the film. It stands to reason that some of those 453,841 people would be interested in seeing Peter Broderick’s next film. That’s a pretty savvy investment in his future, huh?

What eactly did they give up?

Not being facetious, just interested in your viewpoint

“Actually, what you meant to say I think is “You are wrong, I am right, and I don’t give a damn if you prove me wrong”. It’s pretty much the same ground that religious people stand on when someone proves their faith to be more hokey than cow tipping.”

Actually no, what I meant to say was said. YOU constantly shoot down anything where the artists try anything different. That’s a fact. If we could tie you down to all your comments it’d be provable. I won’t try debating with someone who doesn’t care. Anything new or innovative is bad. That’s your standpoint. Or they’re catering to scum or giving up “millions” for “pennies” (despite being no way to verify that one way or another, beyond your opinion, which is not fact).

“The snowflake remains… you can figure out who I am, I don’t hide (unlike some here might do).”

Actually, you do hide. You use the AC moniker. If you didn’t want to hide, you’d come up with a unique username and stick with it, or register. Also, the snowflake remains IN A GIVEN ARTICLE. It changes for each article though. So no, we can’t figure out who you are. But what I can figure out is people’s writing styles. They’re often very unique. I’ve got you pegged already and that’s why I said what I did earlier. You’re the same AC who says the same thing in most articles like this one. I can’t prove this, but I’m about 95% certain that is correct.

“Not, not taboo. Rather, it is often a question of what did they give up to make it happen. Did they give up a million dollar business to make a few thousand? On another post (regarding 99 cent ebooks) we are having an interesting discussion about results from Steam cheap sales and how it plays out. The economics of the situation are important. What you call a non-traditional means to me is often like the dreaded magic spell, turning gold into lead. Yes, enough lead and you can make some money – but did you give away a lot of gold to get it?”

Actually, “we” aren’t having anything of the sort. You are doing the same thing there as here. Shooting down an author’s attempts at giving people more reasons to buy. In fact, based on the comments there and your comments here, I’m sure you’re the AC who said “trading dollars for pennies”. Meanwhile, EVERYONE ELSE is having an interesting conversation pointing out to you how very wrong you are and how other similar things have been done and citing sources and quotes of people who’ve done so showing they gain a tremendous short term profit and then long term they also gain more sales.

“I think that it often does come down to looking like begging, or worse to me, looking for a sucker to pay a big amount of money to make up for all the free stuff you had to give away.”

Yes, so we’re back to my point. Trying anything new at all or giving people a little more bang for their buck is “begging”. I could rest my case right here and I wouldn’t be wrong at all about anything I said about you. Per your own words as proof.

“More importantly, it’s understanding that there is no one right answer here, what works for A doesn’t work for B, because these are all still one offs. There is often no real business model to be seen here, and even when you can find one, they are models that wouldn’t appear to be functional if a lot of people were doing them at the same time. It’s why any discussion about a business model or choice of selling method also has to look at the practicality of something beyond the single instance. We learn from that what is “unique this time, so it works” compared to “unique in a new business model that works”.”

Ah yes, you had to bring out the “well it won’t work for X” or “it won’t scale” and the rest of the usual lines to dismiss this. Man PaulT had you guys burned in another article, or it may have been another AC who quoted verbatim the usual “arguments”/”talking points” and you’ve hit them all. No one said there is just one right answer, so where you get that I have no idea. What has been said in the article is a FREE movie made $1 million in 14 days (to reiterate the headline). Good on the people involved. They are trying new things and they’re doing pretty good for themselves. Here comes the AC to wag his finger though and try and smack down that success.

“I am interested in anything positive – but I am not a sucker for falling for something that is positive for a moment, and negative overall. I stand back a bit, and look at what it really does, the positive and the negatives, and try to find what the real net effect is. Right now, too much of what is discussed here is stepping over dollars to pick up pennies, or worse, trying to compete with piracy by giving even more stuff away – hoping some sucker will buy something over priced to make it all work out. I am not sure that there positive in there, when weighed against the overall effect, is worth it.”

The “dollars for pennies” talking point has worn thin, per the other article where the adults are having some genuine discussion, that has already been shot down. And sorry to say, but you don’t appear to be interested in anything positive. If you were, you’d see this article and what happened as positive and applaud it, not attempt to tear it down. You can’t just join the article and say “Well, good for them. That’s impressive. Would it work for everyone? No. But in this case, for them, it did work and that’s great. Can’t wait to see what they try next. No sarcasm.” I’m sure that’d be difficult for you to do, but try it. It’s amazing.

“Most important: remember not everyone agrees with you (or Mike). You can go a long way looking at the other side’s point of view and learning from it.”

No one said everyone agrees with me (or Mike). What I said is you’re shooting everything down for artists who don’t do what has been done to do like everyone else has been doing and most keep doing. I was talking about you. I can see plenty of things from the other side and learn from it, I’m one of those open minded people. But I tend to realize some people are just dicks and turn to that talking point when they get called out on something, like you’ve been. It’s basically a “I refuse to change my mindset regardless of any proof that negates what I say, but I’m entitled to my opinion and maybe YOU should try and realize you’re not right and that people don’t agree with you.” You try and spin things around rather than own up to what you’ve been saying which appears to be wrong/arrogant/spiteful/etc.

Try taking your own advice, you just might grow as a person. But I wouldn’t bet a dollar or a few pennies on it.

“The “dollars for pennies” talking point has worn thin, per the other article where the adults are having some genuine discussion, that has already been shot down.”

Let me start here. You might not like it, but I am one of those adults having that discussion. The point is asked, and the responses as answers are good and accepted as such. Someone put up some good numbers from Steam, as an example, and it will be interesting to see if ebooks follow the same pattern. Clearly, you need a significant boost in sales to be able to come to the same gross income levels, so the price point doesn’t just have to be effective, it has to be VERY effective.

“what I meant to say was said. YOU constantly shoot down anything where the artists try anything different.”

I only question if the idea is really something with legs (ie a repeatable business model, one that could be used by others on a regular basis) or if the thing is a one off, best suited to the first mover, the one who used it, and perhaps only to use it once.

Remember “Pay what you want”? That is a perfect example of something that works well when only one or two do it. When too many do it, I think that it helps the public to choose not paying more and more often. Short term, single play, the results might be okay. But long term, is it really a business model, or just a snazzy piece of marketing that loses it’s luster the second time around?

Remember, one one side there is a wholesale attempt by Mike and others to drag the existing IP industries down to nothing. In doing that, you have to look for replacements for them. What will fill the vacuum? You may be looking at the shiny idea over here that works once. I am seeking the overall concept, the overall market process that will work in the future. Most of the shiny ideas don’t fit together very well.

I don’t refuse to change my mindset – but I do have a fairly specific desire to see a more formed up solution to the overall deal. I accept that, in any single circumstance, almost any model may or may not accidentally work out. Yet, most of them don’t scale – and that is where I get stuck.

What you are doing is what Mike does so often here: Getting so close to something, looking at only one small moving part, that you forget that there is a whole machine out there. Either that, or we get the 30,000 foot view with absolutely no details. Can you guys work on finding a way where you can look at the parts, but also look to see how they integrate into the “new” machine? Without it, you just have a pile of shiny parts on your desk that produce very little.

“Well, in this case, they may have given up things like the ability to bring the video to the retail market (as a DVD or other) in the future, because it’s already been released and widely viewed.”

Widely viewed movies don’t sell well? So movies that do well in theaters sell poorly in retail?

People do not purchase dvds of movies they plan to watch ones. They rent them, wait for netflix or if neither of those are available the pirate.

People buy movies they know they like that they know they will watch multiple times over the years.

What about anarchists cookbooks?

Kevin Smith released Red State to Netflix…that seemed like a better plan than releasing to DVD, and on top of that he didn’t have to go through a studio to do it.

In other words, you have nothing to add. Got you.

Most movies are based in fiction, i.e. bullshit and pseudoscience, and go on to make millions. Including those made by the studios. Some of which are pretty sympathetic towards filesharing.

As an example, the remake of the Karate Kid had Jaden Smith’s character present his crush with a burned CD (shock horror!) of classical music. Now you might consider that this would fall under public domain, but in order to use classical music you’d still have to get rights from the performing orchestra or group (even if the composer is long dead). So it’s likely that the download in the story wasn’t legally made.

So what was your point again?