but Onerous. Draconian may have been nice and alliterative when applied to DRM (the dreaded, despised, Draconian DRM deeply disturbed Dante), but it just doesn't sum up the above and beyond pain in the ass that stuff like this embodies.
Come on, Mike, give onerous a chance.
Good luck alienating your customers, Apple, and let me know how that works out for you.
Agreed. Maybe the sheer density of population in Japan makes the niche marketing of so many unique items more feasible, maybe the Japanese are just more willing to embrace the unique. Maybe the heads of companies in the US are just so scared to try something new (new Coke, Crystal Pepsi, dog food flavored Cheetos, etc.) that they almost always defer to lowest common denominator products, ensuring that, while all you can get is vanilla, you can sure as hell get that vanilla everywhere.
Oh, and let's be a bit continental in our verbiage, and say that North America gets shat upon. It just sounds like a more erudite BM.
Horror isn't the only genre that can make a low budget smash. Napoleon Dynamite cost about $400K to make, and it made a buttload of money. I fondly remember a lot of quiet hits, and the common denominator has always been solid story telling. Hollywood, she don't get that, and will pander to the teens who spend their allowance on the latest effects-driven pile of crap that Access Hollywood told them to see.
Oh, and be careful with your mixed cliches there, that's another landmine. I'll invoice you a penny for my two cents on the matter, and we can agree in principle to disagree or something.
Yes, irregardless is a word, but it is a stupid word. I find that, as soon as I see someone using that word, it is convenient to simply disregard their entire statement, as the speaker is trying to self-bootstrap their argument into a position of credibility by inserting the biggest word they can muster rather than using facts and/or solid reasoning. Antidisestablishmentarianism is a word also, but I doubt that you'll find it used in many coherent conversations.
So, to sum up, you are right, but you are nit-picking for the wrong reasons. Plus, I got a strong hit on my Sarcasmometer when I read the initial post, so it doesn't matter either way.
I'd love to see this carried to Apple's doorstep, in that they try to restrict any installs of their OS to Apple products, citing the EULA that users must 'accept' before installing (I hate using the emphasis/sarcastic quotes, but Apple brings it out of me). I've been waiting for their "you don't own OSX, you own a license to use OSX" line to meet a serious challenge, and this feels close enough to the mark to me.
"Encased meat", eh? Sounds like a Hot Doug's fan right there.
Free speech doesn't really exist anywhere, because there are so many codicils and exceptions at this point that even the government has no problem telling you that you can't say this or that. I'm not talking about the classic 'shout fire in a crowded theatre' scenario either, just being bitter in general while also being too lazy to cite specifics.
I laugh, then I weep, then I laugh some more, when I read these comments. I call it a Godwin's law effect; either DRM, the RIAA/Trent Reznor, or speed limits/red light cameras will be brought up in any given Techdirt topic, so long as the comment number is greater than 15.
In this case, both parties at fault, one for being too stupid to look where she was going and the other for not following clearly established procedures designed to protect those too stupid to look where they arae going from themselves. Ruling: Double Fault, we shall proceed to a Sudden Death Elimination Final.
Weapon of choice is rat traps and thumbtacks. Ready? Go!!!
Although the above argument sounds reasonable, it neglects to take into account that to flaunt is to show off while to flout is to scorn or show contempt for. This would, in fact, preclude "flaunt the law" from making the same statement as "flout the law". The RIAA could, however, flaunt their contempt for the law, which would be nearly the same as flouting, but a bit more ostentatious.
So long, Fare well, Auf Wiedershein, Good Bye, I Flit, I Float, I Flutter and I Fly. (Sorry, too much flout/flaunt talk makes me want to sing.)
"But, that's not what you've been saying! You want them to give everything away and to not make any money..."
That headline is only going to lure the industry shill ACs from the woodwaork. Even though this article didn't touch on business and pricing models, someone will decide it should, and make a total mess of this post.
I'm a fan of Kevin Smith as well, and while some of what he makes is shite, he's even gracious enough to mock himself through in-scene dialogue. He always seems to come off as a fan of movies/comics himself, a true geek, and as long as that attitude persists, I'll be glad to pay for his stuff.
Nickelback does suck, by the way. They are the Journey of the 20-aughts. Processed, corporate rock shite. You want some good Canadian stuff, go download you some Sloan. Pay for it if you want, but if you do like it, find a way to get some cash to the band. Me, I like T-Shirts and live shows.
Lord, you ACs come here to gripe, and then insist that Mike do the heavy lifting for you. Real quick, continuing with the Trent Reznor frame of reference.
The model was never stated as "free music, expensive tickets", it was more like "Connect with your fans, and give them a reason to buy". To cover the first part of that scenario, Reznor first made his music incredibly easy to get to, DRM-free and in a number of high-quality formats. He encouraged remixing of his audio, providing albums/songs in multi-track files to make slicing and dicing easy for apt fans, and provided tons of video footage from live performances for fans to play with. This showed fans that the man valued them, or at least didn't think they were criminal children. Yes, he was giving stuff away, but it was to show that he was invested in them as well, and this built a stronger loyalty.
The second part, a reason to buy, involves him offering the music for free, but then allowing fans a deeper experience, as well as scarce goods that couldn't be downloaded. For examples, see link:
In this case, the limited edition package sold out, equalling $750,000 in gross sales, and God knows how much more in sales of the other packages.
Ticket prices may indeed go up, but at a certain point the market won't bear it any more. When it hits that point, the difference will be in the extras that artists offer, and what they can do to show their fanbase that they appreciate the attention. (Mean, school marm-y summary coming) If they can connect with their fans, and at the same time give those fans a reason to buy, fans WILL buy, and artists worth their salt should be just fine.
Browbeating/harrassing/suing fans sure as hell isn't connecting with them, and no matter how much the RIAA howls, they can't change that.
I'll disagree with you again here. Music has become an infinite good regardless of whether file sharing exists. You can purchase a song digitally from any number of sources. In every case, you aren't buying a physical good anymore, you are buying a digital copy, a collection of ones and zeros that is infinitely copiable. This copy does not reduce the seller's inventory, there is only an infinitessimal cost for the duplication, and the copy is identical to the original.
Despite this sudden and dramatic drop in the cost to procduce, the price of the music, as dictated by record companies, has not fallen. CDs are not pressed for these songs, album art not printed, etc. Beyond the initial cost of producing the music itself, there's near-zero overhead. I do not have a problem with a record company recouping their production costs, nor with them making some profit on the music once that cost has been covered. I do have a problem with an old pricing system being perpetuated when the cost of production has fallen dramatically.
I doubt that most file-sharers can claim a philosophical basis such as this as justification for their sharing. They are simply following an entropy-driven system that allows vast expansion of their music catalogues for minimal cost/effort.
In my mind, the legality/motivation question is a moot point, because the P2P community won't be held back at this point. Set up a fence, and they'll go over/under/around it. Electrify the fence, and they may simply avoid your yard entirely. One solution, the one that Mike, and I, will advocate, is to tear down the fence around those things easiest to get. Instead, build that fence around the things that you can truly control, those scarce goods that fans seek out.
You're talking morality, and we're talking economics. I'm not going to play on your ground, because it's not as advantageous to my argument. Sun Tzu devoted two chapters in "The Art of War" to choosing and knowing your battleground, and I know that this battle will be decided on the field of economics, not morals. I'll concde that there may be some truth in your argument, talk of drug dealers and hookers aside (heavy-handed, that was), but truth rarely won any wars.
Don't be lazy, look it up yourself. If you're trying to use the lack of a link as a way to combat the AC's argument, then you're playing troll games.
@ the initial AC:
Yes, NIN is, to paraphrase Reznor, going to go away for a while. Tour shirts carry the phrase "Wave Goodbye" to emphasize this. This doesn't undermine the point at all, though. Just because someone decides to stop producing a scarce good, it doesn't mean that they weren't making money with it/that the business model is bad. In this case, I'd wager that Reznor feels like taking a break, and has the fuck you money to do what he pleases. I think that one can infer that his utilization of a free music/pricey scarcities model has given him the financial reserves to do whatever the hell he feels like doing, and at this point it appears that he doesn't really want to tour, so he's not. contrast that with bands who are still label-slaves, and continue to tour well past their primes. I'd imagine that if the Rolling Stones had been able to properly monetize their act, I wouldn't have to listen to their new shit anymore, and could fondly remember them as a good band instead of the headliners on the "Please God, just let them die already" tour, sponsored by Cialis and Geritol.
If you see the "old system" as simply someone making money from their art, then you have gravely misunderstood this argument. The old system charges for the music itself(most of this money going to the record labels), as well as the scarce goods that fans seek out. Newer methods will discount/give away the music, which NIN has done, and instead seek to make their money on the accompanying scarcities, e.g. limited editions, signed vinyl, other merch, and tours. Since music has become a near-infinite good, the onus of making a profit shifts to those things that an artist can control, namely material goods (shirts, posters, vinyl) and 'face time' goods (performances).
RSS
Twitter
Not Draconian, (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
but Onerous. Draconian may have been nice and alliterative when applied to DRM (the dreaded, despised, Draconian DRM deeply disturbed Dante), but it just doesn't sum up the above and beyond pain in the ass that stuff like this embodies.
Come on, Mike, give onerous a chance.
Good luck alienating your customers, Apple, and let me know how that works out for you.
Re: As always.... (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Agreed. Maybe the sheer density of population in Japan makes the niche marketing of so many unique items more feasible, maybe the Japanese are just more willing to embrace the unique. Maybe the heads of companies in the US are just so scared to try something new (new Coke, Crystal Pepsi, dog food flavored Cheetos, etc.) that they almost always defer to lowest common denominator products, ensuring that, while all you can get is vanilla, you can sure as hell get that vanilla everywhere.
Oh, and let's be a bit continental in our verbiage, and say that North America gets shat upon. It just sounds like a more erudite BM.
I could throw a football a quarter mile (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Horror isn't the only genre that can make a low budget smash. Napoleon Dynamite cost about $400K to make, and it made a buttload of money. I fondly remember a lot of quiet hits, and the common denominator has always been solid story telling. Hollywood, she don't get that, and will pander to the teens who spend their allowance on the latest effects-driven pile of crap that Access Hollywood told them to see.
Re: Re: Re: Socialist Liberal Smear Campaign (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Oh, and be careful with your mixed cliches there, that's another landmine. I'll invoice you a penny for my two cents on the matter, and we can agree in principle to disagree or something.
Re: Re: Re: Socialist Liberal Smear Campaign (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Yes, irregardless is a word, but it is a stupid word. I find that, as soon as I see someone using that word, it is convenient to simply disregard their entire statement, as the speaker is trying to self-bootstrap their argument into a position of credibility by inserting the biggest word they can muster rather than using facts and/or solid reasoning. Antidisestablishmentarianism is a word also, but I doubt that you'll find it used in many coherent conversations.
So, to sum up, you are right, but you are nit-picking for the wrong reasons. Plus, I got a strong hit on my Sarcasmometer when I read the initial post, so it doesn't matter either way.
Meow!
Re: (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Um, he's French. Leave Belgium alone, they make wonderful beer.
Bass!!! (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
How low can you go?
Apparently, only down to $25.
Hackintosh next? (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
I'd love to see this carried to Apple's doorstep, in that they try to restrict any installs of their OS to Apple products, citing the EULA that users must 'accept' before installing (I hate using the emphasis/sarcastic quotes, but Apple brings it out of me). I've been waiting for their "you don't own OSX, you own a license to use OSX" line to meet a serious challenge, and this feels close enough to the mark to me.
Re: Other idiotic sayings (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
"Encased meat", eh? Sounds like a Hot Doug's fan right there.
Free speech doesn't really exist anywhere, because there are so many codicils and exceptions at this point that even the government has no problem telling you that you can't say this or that. I'm not talking about the classic 'shout fire in a crowded theatre' scenario either, just being bitter in general while also being too lazy to cite specifics.
So many angry people (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
I laugh, then I weep, then I laugh some more, when I read these comments. I call it a Godwin's law effect; either DRM, the RIAA/Trent Reznor, or speed limits/red light cameras will be brought up in any given Techdirt topic, so long as the comment number is greater than 15.
In this case, both parties at fault, one for being too stupid to look where she was going and the other for not following clearly established procedures designed to protect those too stupid to look where they arae going from themselves. Ruling: Double Fault, we shall proceed to a Sudden Death Elimination Final.
Weapon of choice is rat traps and thumbtacks. Ready? Go!!!
Re: Re: It's "flout" not "flaunt" (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Although the above argument sounds reasonable, it neglects to take into account that to flaunt is to show off while to flout is to scorn or show contempt for. This would, in fact, preclude "flaunt the law" from making the same statement as "flout the law". The RIAA could, however, flaunt their contempt for the law, which would be nearly the same as flouting, but a bit more ostentatious.
So long, Fare well, Auf Wiedershein, Good Bye, I Flit, I Float, I Flutter and I Fly. (Sorry, too much flout/flaunt talk makes me want to sing.)
Let me get the ball rollling here (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
"But, that's not what you've been saying! You want them to give everything away and to not make any money..."
That headline is only going to lure the industry shill ACs from the woodwaork. Even though this article didn't touch on business and pricing models, someone will decide it should, and make a total mess of this post.
I'm a fan of Kevin Smith as well, and while some of what he makes is shite, he's even gracious enough to mock himself through in-scene dialogue. He always seems to come off as a fan of movies/comics himself, a true geek, and as long as that attitude persists, I'll be glad to pay for his stuff.
Re: We need an "obvious" meter... (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
They know it's a multipass.
-Corbin Dallas
(Nice Bloom Co. ref, tho.)
Re: (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
AC #2 beat me to it here. Bullshit.
Units shipped is a centralized number, and you're either dumb or a shill.
"Battle not with the stupid, lest ye become stupid."
Chad Kroeger's Horse-face (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Nickelback does suck, by the way. They are the Journey of the 20-aughts. Processed, corporate rock shite. You want some good Canadian stuff, go download you some Sloan. Pay for it if you want, but if you do like it, find a way to get some cash to the band. Me, I like T-Shirts and live shows.
Re: Re: Re: (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Lord, you ACs come here to gripe, and then insist that Mike do the heavy lifting for you. Real quick, continuing with the Trent Reznor frame of reference.
The model was never stated as "free music, expensive tickets", it was more like "Connect with your fans, and give them a reason to buy". To cover the first part of that scenario, Reznor first made his music incredibly easy to get to, DRM-free and in a number of high-quality formats. He encouraged remixing of his audio, providing albums/songs in multi-track files to make slicing and dicing easy for apt fans, and provided tons of video footage from live performances for fans to play with. This showed fans that the man valued them, or at least didn't think they were criminal children. Yes, he was giving stuff away, but it was to show that he was invested in them as well, and this built a stronger loyalty.
The second part, a reason to buy, involves him offering the music for free, but then allowing fans a deeper experience, as well as scarce goods that couldn't be downloaded. For examples, see link:
http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options
In this case, the limited edition package sold out, equalling $750,000 in gross sales, and God knows how much more in sales of the other packages.
Ticket prices may indeed go up, but at a certain point the market won't bear it any more. When it hits that point, the difference will be in the extras that artists offer, and what they can do to show their fanbase that they appreciate the attention. (Mean, school marm-y summary coming) If they can connect with their fans, and at the same time give those fans a reason to buy, fans WILL buy, and artists worth their salt should be just fine.
Browbeating/harrassing/suing fans sure as hell isn't connecting with them, and no matter how much the RIAA howls, they can't change that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
I'll disagree with you again here. Music has become an infinite good regardless of whether file sharing exists. You can purchase a song digitally from any number of sources. In every case, you aren't buying a physical good anymore, you are buying a digital copy, a collection of ones and zeros that is infinitely copiable. This copy does not reduce the seller's inventory, there is only an infinitessimal cost for the duplication, and the copy is identical to the original.
Despite this sudden and dramatic drop in the cost to procduce, the price of the music, as dictated by record companies, has not fallen. CDs are not pressed for these songs, album art not printed, etc. Beyond the initial cost of producing the music itself, there's near-zero overhead. I do not have a problem with a record company recouping their production costs, nor with them making some profit on the music once that cost has been covered. I do have a problem with an old pricing system being perpetuated when the cost of production has fallen dramatically.
I doubt that most file-sharers can claim a philosophical basis such as this as justification for their sharing. They are simply following an entropy-driven system that allows vast expansion of their music catalogues for minimal cost/effort.
In my mind, the legality/motivation question is a moot point, because the P2P community won't be held back at this point. Set up a fence, and they'll go over/under/around it. Electrify the fence, and they may simply avoid your yard entirely. One solution, the one that Mike, and I, will advocate, is to tear down the fence around those things easiest to get. Instead, build that fence around the things that you can truly control, those scarce goods that fans seek out.
You're talking morality, and we're talking economics. I'm not going to play on your ground, because it's not as advantageous to my argument. Sun Tzu devoted two chapters in "The Art of War" to choosing and knowing your battleground, and I know that this battle will be decided on the field of economics, not morals. I'll concde that there may be some truth in your argument, talk of drug dealers and hookers aside (heavy-handed, that was), but truth rarely won any wars.
Fun fighting with you.
Re: Re: (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Don't be lazy, look it up yourself. If you're trying to use the lack of a link as a way to combat the AC's argument, then you're playing troll games.
@ the initial AC:
Yes, NIN is, to paraphrase Reznor, going to go away for a while. Tour shirts carry the phrase "Wave Goodbye" to emphasize this. This doesn't undermine the point at all, though. Just because someone decides to stop producing a scarce good, it doesn't mean that they weren't making money with it/that the business model is bad. In this case, I'd wager that Reznor feels like taking a break, and has the fuck you money to do what he pleases. I think that one can infer that his utilization of a free music/pricey scarcities model has given him the financial reserves to do whatever the hell he feels like doing, and at this point it appears that he doesn't really want to tour, so he's not. contrast that with bands who are still label-slaves, and continue to tour well past their primes. I'd imagine that if the Rolling Stones had been able to properly monetize their act, I wouldn't have to listen to their new shit anymore, and could fondly remember them as a good band instead of the headliners on the "Please God, just let them die already" tour, sponsored by Cialis and Geritol.
If you see the "old system" as simply someone making money from their art, then you have gravely misunderstood this argument. The old system charges for the music itself(most of this money going to the record labels), as well as the scarce goods that fans seek out. Newer methods will discount/give away the music, which NIN has done, and instead seek to make their money on the accompanying scarcities, e.g. limited editions, signed vinyl, other merch, and tours. Since music has become a near-infinite good, the onus of making a profit shifts to those things that an artist can control, namely material goods (shirts, posters, vinyl) and 'face time' goods (performances).
Re: (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Yeah, because your version is so easy to understand...
I can't even decode it well enough to know if I agree with you or not. Bettter luck next time.
Re: Re: Re: (as Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug)
Me, if that's not sarcastic, it's probably the most F'ed up thing I've read this week.