Lowestofthekeys' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the hollywood-run-amuck dept
Reading through the menagerie of Techdirt posts this week led me to develop a better understanding of how some of these media companies work as well as to increase my disdain for Hollywood and their view of the consumer.
First up, we have the article regarding HBO's lack of foresight:
It's awesome to run a business; I don't attempt to run a business because pop music already gives me high blood pressure. I do understand certain fundamentals though, like planning for the long-term. HBO apparently doesn't understand this, and as bob so brilliantly brought out (Black Swan wins again!), the industry has set itself up into a position where it has to maintain revenues at a specific level or it will collapse. Because of this, the consumer suffers because HBO expects us to adapt to their needs.
Second, we have the article about Disney's presentation on copyright and creativity:
The pattern of shortsightedness continues, though here we have a company that built itself on two things: copyright and public domain, but seems to be very focused on the copyright aspect. I haven't seen the presentation, but if I were the gambling type, I'd place my bets on the fact that it will be geared towards stronger copyright law and it's relation to creativity. If this proves true, then it just adds insult to injury with Disney's already stellar record of denying the public domain, and by extension creators everywhere, the content it needs.
My third favorite was Zach Knight's (vampire detective?) article on focusing on why people don't buy:
To me, this article focuses on two things: foresight and analysis. These two aspects are key to marketing effectively, but yet Hollywood is focused on preventing stage six, which basically means their time and effort is spent trying to prevent people from taking things for free instead of nipping the process in the bud by seeing what they can change earlier on to make people want to buy. Frankly, the latter seems like it has a more sustainable, long-term effect while the former just sustains the current model. This is, once again, an example of why Steve Jobs was an awesome businessman, and Hollywood is a terrible child.
Re: Non-issue
Just because unpaid internships are common, does not mean it's okay for a company to take advantage of whatever interns are working under them.
One of the things that bugs me about the court case is the fact that the unpaid interns "displaced regular employees and received no benefit from the internship beyond what they would have received had they been classified as employees..." and there was also no educational benefit found in what they were doing for Fox.
(http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/246016/employee+rights+labour+relations/Court+Holds+Em ployer+Unlawfully+Classified+Workers+As+Unpaid+Interns)
Working for free in a competitive environment like Hollywood is very counter-productive, especially if you walk away from an internship with only a few references and work experience.
(untitled comment)
I might need some more details but this is from Leaseweb's TOS:
"
25.2 Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement:
25.2.1 LeaseWeb shall cease to provide all Services;
25.2.2 LeaseWeb shall be entitled to erase and delete any and all data of Customer -and any
and all data of Customer’s End Users- from LeaseWeb’s Infrastructure, including from
the Dedicated Infrastructure;"
http://www.leaseweb.us/uploads/legal/20130521_USA_General_Terms_v2013-1_1.pdf
I'm wondering if the lack of funds caused them to delete the data.
Re:
I can imagine there would be a lot more abuse, but that means things behind the scenes would need to change.
Couldn't there be a fair contractual agreement to be used between a company and a person so that the intern remained protected?
Re: Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.
Hilarious rhetoric is hilarious.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This was from his Tiger Beat days. Mike ousted Lief Garret from the running for "sexiest mid-sentence photograph."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Joe has this on his wall: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2chq906&s=6
Re: Not free as in beer. Or anything else.
I think they know. They know he's a hand puppet cleverly disguised as a politician who lies to the American public with loaded language.
More importantly, he is easy to control.
(untitled comment)
That mentality has always bothered me. You see it so often in the movie industry where they'll focus so much of the financials on the visual aspects like the CGI or the actors, and then expect a huge return.
People can smell that shit, and they don't like being tossed a sugar-frosted piece of poo.
Also, this guy brings up a good point about video games: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7121-Dark-Souls-and-Dark-Sales
Re:
" chubby click-loving FUD-pumper?"
That sounds like an incredibly complex sexual act.
Re: Re: If you want to go after a liar look in the mirror
You glossed over the fact that the Sky is Rising also refers to the opening of more opportunities for artists. People no longer have to go through a large conglomerate to pursue their passion.
Re: Re: Re:
C'mon Joe, you're not that dumb. You know that the numbers are pretty arbitrary and they're not what people are looking for.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
"making everyone happy all of the time, that is impossible, they do serve the interests of the people, they just do not serve the interest of the PERSON."
Yes it is, but you're assuming that is what people want.
I agree, politicians are not there to support the interest of one person, but you're forgetting there are plenty of politicians who are only looking out for themselves and their interests instead of the people they represent.
"What if you don't have the same interests as the person who lives next door to you, who out of you two gets to have their interest served and who does not, who decides that ?"
Then I would start a special interest group of people with like minded values and we'd fund politicians to voice our interests. I'm not supportive of a singular voice of concern, but when you have a poll of multiple people displaying concern, you can't write it off as people expecting too much from politicians who are put into office to represent them.
"If you all have THE SAME interests (impossible) then it would be possible to serve YOUR interests, but if (like in the real world) there are as many 'interests" as there are people, that could change from day to day, how do you expect them all to be 'served'??"
According to your logic then, if a number of people voice their concern over say having clean drinking water, then they're being unrealistic?
"It's also very egotistic and self-serving, you are saying if you do not get exactly what you want you get upset, and shows you have no care for what other people want, and no willingness to reach a fair compromise where (like the real world) you get some things you like and accept some things you don't. Because when you don't like is probably the thing someone else does like, and when you do like is probably what someone else (or many else) don't like.
"
Really? is this how you justify what the NSA is doing? So it's egotistical for the public to be concerned about their privacy from the government?
And no, I don't get it because your logic matches your asinine analogies.
Re: Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
"Or it shows that a lot of people expect the impossible, and have an expectation that THEY should not have to compromise and be a part of a community based on compromise."
How so? What exactly are the people expecting that is impossible for these politicians to attain?
...and compromise? What types of compromise are reasonable to the American public?
"actually NO, they are not, they are elected to Govern."
Um, excuse me? Politicians are elected by each state as the voice for the public, they serve the interests of the people.
Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
"that is why the constitution says "We the people" not "ME the person""
There are basic necessities and comforts that politicians should push for especially considering that they're elected by people to voice specific concerns and incite change.
The poll is proof that they're not voicing the concerns of the majority very well.
The fact that you are trying to dismiss the majority reference of the poll by pointing to the opinion of one person is a pretty ignorant thing to do.
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you want this question answered so badly?
I understand you're trying to prove Mike is some kind of terrible person, but the fact that you're a lawyer and resort to childish badgering is kind of astounding.
Also, you don't seem to understand the fact that the pushing and derailing you attempt only strengthens the resolve of everyone here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
"skew the algorithm"
This is incredibly important. After minor updates to the algorithm (Panda and Penguin) people lost a lot of business and had to spend hours redoing their content to deal with the changes.
I imagine that if the RIAA/MPAA forced Google to change their algorithm, it would cause damage on a mass scale.
Re: Re: Re:
Google has also complied the same way the theaters have, but you didn't answer my question...are theater owners responsible for piracy acting as intermediaries for content?
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
"Google is not an inanimate object like a gun or car."
But it is a tool.
Re:
So by your logic, since movie theaters are intermediaries between Hollywood and the public, they're responsible for piracy, right?
Re:
Even troll posts = content.
Ironically it will only keep Techdirt high in the rankings.