Re: Re: But isn't the Music Business in Ruins From Sharing?
"The recording industry alos went from selling shiny plastic discs for $14.99 to selling individual songs for $1.29."
Since most are sold for $.99 not $1.29, and almost none are sold compared to what are exchanged online for free, this is hardly a counter narrative to the one that says the CD producers have been failing for parts of a decade!
I get it, the CD business isn't the entire business. Well, yes, few artists except the biggest really benefit from CDs. But CDs are the mass public intersect with the musice business. Many would argue that most musicians profit most from personal appearances. But I am SPEAKING of the CD business and the copyright holders, not of the ancillary revenue streams of musicians and composers. MP3s are 99 cents. I have never bought one but have 41,000 of them. For
all the Hype Apple and I-Tunes buy from the media by essentially overfeeding them with advertising, I-Tunes contributes very little to the copyright holders and the CD business has been in free fall for the last decade. I'm hoping the same happens to the moviemakers, since they keep pitching lowest common denominator junk, while signs of resistance to the junk grow. I believe the Industry let Red Box and Netflix undercut their major product out of a stupid indifference. Galaxy and Blockbuster will soon be history while Hollywood moves onto the Cloud and downloads. I'm a consumer. When cheap rentals ($1.50 Tuesdays) and later Redbox and Netflix lowered prices, I, like many others, took a look a good look at what the industry is producing and decided to consume less. I'm cherry picking older stuff now for peanuts, won't go near Gallery or Blockbuster. The Industry is not going to re-achieve its enormous DVD success anytime soon. I would say the machinations of pirates, downloaders, sidewalk DVD salesmen and bit torrents, but mostly consumer displeasure with the studios, have lowered the prospects of the studios, wouldn't you say?
You're all discussing films which have not seen sharing on the level of movie sharing. Isn't there pretty strong evidence the CD producers are achieving nothing like the sales they once did, and the reason is sharing? I'm new here and not ready to accept the wisdom of folks who've been here forever batting these issues around. Go ahead, educate me if you can?
I can't take your word that this is an agreement between Murdoch and Google. The reason: I fail to see how this suits Murdoch's WSJ in the least. But go ahead, you explain it to me? (Sorry to have to put this up twice, failed to check the email when there are comments box)
I can't take your word that this is an agreement between Murdoch and Google. The reason: I fail to see how this suits Murdoch's WSJ in the least. But go ahead, you explain it to me?
I don't know whether this has been discussed here. All you have to do to find a paywall protected Wall Street Journal story is copy and paste the headline on the story- even off the link that gives you the truncated version of that story-go to google search, pop the headline in the search blan and you will find the ENTIRE story therewith. Even the links with the truncated dead-ends on line like Slatest Morning News, can be retrofitted to get the entire story. Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.
I don't know whether this has been discussed here. All you have to do to find a paywall protected Wall Street Journal story is copy and paste the headline on the story- even off the link that gives you the truncated version of that story-go to google search, pop the headline in the search blan and you will find the ENTIRE story therewith. Even the links with the truncated dead-ends on line like Slatest Morning News, can be retrofitted to get the entire story. Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by mikex.
Re: Re: But isn't the Music Business in Ruins From Sharing?
Re: Re: But isn't the Music Business in Ruins From Sharing? "The recording industry alos went from selling shiny plastic discs for $14.99 to selling individual songs for $1.29." Since most are sold for $.99 not $1.29, and almost none are sold compared to what are exchanged online for free, this is hardly a counter narrative to the one that says the CD producers have been failing for parts of a decade!
BreakthePaywall
I still don't see how leaving the stories available to reasonably astute web parsers, benefits Murdoch's WSJ?
But isn't the Music Business in Ruins From Sharing?
I get it, the CD business isn't the entire business. Well, yes, few artists except the biggest really benefit from CDs. But CDs are the mass public intersect with the musice business. Many would argue that most musicians profit most from personal appearances. But I am SPEAKING of the CD business and the copyright holders, not of the ancillary revenue streams of musicians and composers. MP3s are 99 cents. I have never bought one but have 41,000 of them. For all the Hype Apple and I-Tunes buy from the media by essentially overfeeding them with advertising, I-Tunes contributes very little to the copyright holders and the CD business has been in free fall for the last decade. I'm hoping the same happens to the moviemakers, since they keep pitching lowest common denominator junk, while signs of resistance to the junk grow. I believe the Industry let Red Box and Netflix undercut their major product out of a stupid indifference. Galaxy and Blockbuster will soon be history while Hollywood moves onto the Cloud and downloads. I'm a consumer. When cheap rentals ($1.50 Tuesdays) and later Redbox and Netflix lowered prices, I, like many others, took a look a good look at what the industry is producing and decided to consume less. I'm cherry picking older stuff now for peanuts, won't go near Gallery or Blockbuster. The Industry is not going to re-achieve its enormous DVD success anytime soon. I would say the machinations of pirates, downloaders, sidewalk DVD salesmen and bit torrents, but mostly consumer displeasure with the studios, have lowered the prospects of the studios, wouldn't you say?
But isn't the Music Business in Ruins From Sharing?
You're all discussing films which have not seen sharing on the level of movie sharing. Isn't there pretty strong evidence the CD producers are achieving nothing like the sales they once did, and the reason is sharing? I'm new here and not ready to accept the wisdom of folks who've been here forever batting these issues around. Go ahead, educate me if you can?
Murdoch's 'Paywall'
I can't take your word that this is an agreement between Murdoch and Google. The reason: I fail to see how this suits Murdoch's WSJ in the least. But go ahead, you explain it to me? (Sorry to have to put this up twice, failed to check the email when there are comments box)
I can't take your word that this is an agreement between Murdoch and Google. The reason: I fail to see how this suits Murdoch's WSJ in the least. But go ahead, you explain it to me?
Murdoch's 'Paywall'
I don't know whether this has been discussed here. All you have to do to find a paywall protected Wall Street Journal story is copy and paste the headline on the story- even off the link that gives you the truncated version of that story-go to google search, pop the headline in the search blan and you will find the ENTIRE story therewith. Even the links with the truncated dead-ends on line like Slatest Morning News, can be retrofitted to get the entire story. Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.
Murdoch's 'Paywall'
I don't know whether this has been discussed here. All you have to do to find a paywall protected Wall Street Journal story is copy and paste the headline on the story- even off the link that gives you the truncated version of that story-go to google search, pop the headline in the search blan and you will find the ENTIRE story therewith. Even the links with the truncated dead-ends on line like Slatest Morning News, can be retrofitted to get the entire story. Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.