Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
The 7-Eleven you want would have barred windows, armed guards every 6 feet demanding to see your papers and $1.50 to move to the next "station" where another armed guard waits. Then, after spending 30 minutes just to get a slurpee, you pay $18 for said slurpee, go through 6 more check points, before exiting into the parking lot. Once in the parking lot someone follows you all the way to your car (or to the fenced gate if you walked) lecturing you how you're a criminal, you and your pirates have devastated 7-Eleven's profit margins and all the children's baseball teams they supported. You paid $18 for that slurpee because you're a dirty pirate and 7-Eleven lost potential revenue because of you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
You're acting like a pompous ass, and your disingenuous comments are really only making how you're acting more obvious.
No one here advocates the future should be everything given away for free. But whatever. Changing your nickname from Ethical Fan to Video Fan doesn't hide who you really are. Not to mention your drivel is exactly that, and not representative of what this site or its supporters promote.
But we support your right to act as a twat and try to be condescending towards people who stand up against bullshit enforcement methods that don't work. You know what CastleLowery? If you had your way and enforcement stopped infringement completely, killing off all independent competition, you'd still be fucked over by the label and no one would buy your crap (or listen to your rants).
So you'd still be miserable and without income from your creative works.
No one will support a self-entitled artist who treats people (potential fans or not) like crap.
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Mike is pushing, as Cusson says himself, that legal, unhindered, online services that are user-friendly and easy to pay for (buy cards at stores with cash instead of only "enter credit card" for example).
Cusson admits that locking it down doesn't work and that people WILL PAY when given the option, no windows, no restrictions.
That does NOT matter if it is a movie or a TV show.
Highly subjective question. I know of artists who think because they write something they are owed money - they come on here claiming to be authors or musicians. They go to other sites (some of those sites are gone) that I've been on and ranted that because they created something, it's worth millions.
"Merchantable" is a highly subjective claim and a lot of what comes out today, through "hit machines" that cost a few million are not worth it! The masses buy it, good for them, those who can't afford it or don't have credit cards download it. Or copy it from friends.
Enforcement is not going to work with them. They'll find another way to get it or do without. Either way, just because someone releases something doesn't mean it's merchantable and worth the money they demand!
And you're arguing semantics. Obviously some work is required. And obviously it varies. Neil Finn doesn't have to work as long and as hard to create as John Rzeznik - both have explained publicly their artistic creative process.
Does that mean Finn deserves nothing? No. But you can't claim that everyone works very hard and therefore deserves money, which is my whole point!
I've already said, hard work does not mean you deserve income.
And there are lots of artists who's work appears to be effortlessly generated and they go about demanding huge dollars, as though it took them years.
"You hear my latest record, spin on the radio. Ah it took me years to write it, they were the best years of my life. It was a beautiful song, but it ran too long, if you're gonna have a hit you gotta make it fit, so they cut it down to 3:05" - Billy Joel.
Some work hard, some don't have to, some claim to but what they produce does not sound like it was and is not worth what they think.
Translation - you are a waste of time. "Makes me want to go find a pirated version" does not translate as you said, clearly I've ALREADY PAID, but I want a copy that isn't laden with bullshit. And I DON'T pirate, I simply fast forward for 3 minutes (until they block that too).
So sorry, you fail yet again. And you're just so intelligent too, simply amazing.
Some creators bust their ass, many do NOT!
Fruits of their labour forever? Yeah I don't think so and neither does the general public. Want to get paid? Work, and keep working, not once and think you deserve a free ride for the rest of your life.
Want funds for your kids? Work and save, like everyone else.
"This stuff isn't hard" but apparently it is for you to grasp.
And finally you can't understand anything, it reads just fine, but clearly you're incompetent so let me translate:
"However, I believe in being humble and busting your ass is the only way to be worth something." - pretty much self explanatory, no confusion or uncertain direction. 1) Be humble and 2) Bust your ass at all you do!
" Busting your ass though, alone, does not mean you deserve to be paid." - again very self explanatory. 1) You don't deserve to be paid simply because you worked hard. Which means I work hard at what is relevant and needed, that's called working smart. Working hard at something no one wants or can use is stupid.
"No one owes you a living, you have to earn it! I do, thank you very much." -- Again, reiterates the points above.
Is that clear? If not, I don't care, anyone who isn't being disingenuous clearly gets it.
Um no actually. I get paid for what I do and I bust my ass for it too! I am highly valued where I work, so I am told.
However, I believe in being humble and busting your ass is the only way to be worth something. Busting your ass though, alone, does not mean you deserve to be paid.
No one owes you a living, you have to earn it! I do, thank you very much.
I pay people for their creative output if I like it, I don't download or listen to it or watch it if I don't like it. I don't like paying for DVD's that are full of 20 minutes of unskippable ads and piracy lectures. That makes me want to go find the pirated version, which contains the "content" I want, not the horseshit ads and lectures about piracy. Especially when they are bullshit to begin with.
So you're wrong on every front. But thanks for coming out.
That applies to the RIAA and your belief system as well!
Too many factors came in to play, from suddenly no one needed to spend $18 on a whole "album" when they only wanted 2 songs ($2 revenue - that's $16 "lost" revenue do to industry crap - not every album is crap, but a statistically significant, very large, amount is!), to video games, to home theatre, to streaming (legal and otherwise), to every stupid band from the 80's who hasn't released anything since then going on tour to generate income while dropping the revenue new artists would have if they could tour --- there's only so much $$ people have regardless of what the RIAA thinks, to economic downturns, to exposure and competition from indie artists (not just those on indie labels, many of which are owned by RIAA labels) and true indie artists who self publish, to Spotify, etc..
Too many factors but rather than say "well it's a combination of things, part of which is our own fault for not listening to Todd Rundgren, let alone Silicon Valley upstarts we sued or muscled out of business - RICO?" they say "Blame Piracy!"
That's you! That's your same crap. Don't acknowledge the other factors, piracy is an easy sell to ignorant people (artists who don't take the time to read everything they can - positive and negative, label execs who listen to lawyers who need the execs to pay them salaries so they distort facts and manipulate data, and politicians who if not bought by campaign contributions are muscled through connections or offered jobs if they "play along").