That sounds like his MO.
Oh, so you must have missed the part where people have decided to sue these studios for not paying them?
People getting paid for work is definitely not important, right?
"I'm personally responsible for many page views, all by injecting some new and interesting opinions. "
Mmhahahahahahahaha..err..mmm...ugh I just laughed so hard I knocked the wind out of myself.
The rest of your post is sort of off-topic, which is not really conducive to new or interesting opinions, bob.
"The article is so dumb and desperate..."
And yet, here you are commenting on it.
Good companies don't get sued for not paying their interns, you completely missed that point as you're just here to sling insults.
I'm going to summarize out_of_the_poo's position on this article:
Mike, y u make article supporting Random House, then make article not supporting Random House?!!?!
================================================
Frankly, why can;t these companies just be honest, do they really think the public is stupid enough not to realize they're being disingenuous?
out_of_the_poo doesn't really know anyone that well, which is why it's so difficult to relate to his observations.
It's not a censorship tool, it's a way to educate people into not being dumbshits.
It'd be funny if they could make it so specific keywords were replaced with different terms, but only for the trolling accounts.
For example, every time bob says "paywall" it could be replaced with "doo doo butter."
"...but he pretty much admits that even with the power of the internet, the power of the NIN fanbase, he still can't get a new project the exposure it really needs without the labels to open the doors to other markets."
Do you think that's a good thing? That you have to go through a major label to be able to get the exposure you want?
"How's the next band to apply this to get on the gravy train?"
There's no given formula for that, and because the market is over-saturated with music, it's even more difficult for bands to be successful, but it doesn't mean it can't be done.
The only problem is, you can tell when a band is only in it to get on the gravy train. Good bands do it for the art, and when they pay their dues they're more likely to gain success than the one hit wonders.
"we've heard here about how it's important to just give away your digital content and make money selling t-shirts."
Who is "we"?
It's incentive, bob, no one is being forced to do anything.
Plus, the biggest problem with the cable packages is the price you pay for what you're getting, not the choice of channels.
1. The information in those links was used to somehow prop up your claim that the EFF is a Google mouthpiece, so it's kind of hard to take your opinion on the information in them serious when you have such a strong agenda against "Big Search."
Why not try linking an article where someone uses objective analysis to determine that Google is in fact a mouthpiece, instead of using interpretive analysis?
2. "Mike has said the artists should GIVE away their digital content and make money some other way."
How is this stated as an opinion? You talk about it as if it's a fact. If it is your opinion, then say so.
I don't think I've ever seen bob provide a link to backup his claims, leading me to believe he never does research and rather, relies on David Lowery's ranting to support his points.
Paywall? You're comparing apples to oranges, bob.
This isn't a two page news article, this is a full on book and holds more value than a news article.
Besides, I don't see NYT giving the option to pay all the money forward to the author or to charity.
I really think that if the studios end up biting down and attempting to cut costs on distribution, they're going to start pushing for exclusive releases of new movies to video-on-demand services as opposed to theatrical release. There's already talk that they'd be making a steady 80% of the cut from VOD premium showings(http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/01/hollywood-video-on-demand-cinema) and overhead costs would be minimal (no more reproducing film prints).
"One thing that I hope Mike will recognize in these "Hollywood Accounting" stories is that box offices revenues are *not* revenues actually recognized by studios. Generally, 50% or more of those astronomical box office figures go directly to the exhibitors (i.e., the theater owners). Thus, while box office revenues are referenced by studios for purposes of calculating certain percentages owed to participants, it is important to realize that the studio isn't splitting up the box office revenues... it's likely splitting up less than 50% of that amount. I'm not sure that this is distinction is made clear to readers in this article."
That percentage is dependent upon the studio and the theater bidding for the movie. A contributor at joblo.com laid out two articles regarding that here - http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96049 (funnily enough the other one was the one you posted a link to). The first details a story with Sony asking 80% of ticket revenues for Godzilla when it first came out in theaters.
Also according to this - http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution1.htm - movie studios can lessen the impact of a movie's expenses by partnering with other studios.
I....really like this idea.
Sam Tsui is right, you can't become complacent as a content creator, but saying that artists are running to keep in the same place is a generalization. Not every artist is trying their best to create something better than the next guy, and the ones that do and fail, well then maybe that's not their forte'.