I for one think the opposite. A lot of the time I think its amazing your not putting more anger into the items you post. I know I would. Cheers!

Hows about you get more T-Shirts? Two per year wear out pretty quickly

YES GO innovate new ways to print money to pay the debts. Monopoly money is looking like a better deal…..

Until I read this post it had never even crossed my mind that you were pessimistic about todays trends, to me you come across as very optimistic about the future of most of the things you write about, always asking your readers to try to fix any problems with what is happening. Thanks for another great year of well thought out and inspiring posts.

it’s nice that you try to take a more fact-based approach and get through the noise to the meat of most issues

ahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/00462512375/isohunt-appeals-process-begins.shtml#c1622

AJ: “Good grief, Mike. You are a piece of work. You clearly have zero interest in espousing the truth about Fung. Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.”

Where did this come from? You seem to be someone that takes note of every potentially “bad” thing that anyone said on this site to use it against them (or others) in the future.

That shows that you are basically only here to troll. Or that you are actually AJ and are still pissed.

In any event, quoting AJ destroys any credibility your argument might have had (I don’t have anything against the guy, but, for someone who claims to be a lawyer-in-training, he’s kinda thick and annoying).

Something I still don’t understand after reading techdirt for years. Why is innovation the ultimate goal? Why is innovation the most important thing?

Since when are progress and innovation the same thing?

It’s TAM, isn’t it.

The way techdirt defines innovation is invention+market success. You can have profits without invention and you can have invention without profit. Progress is a component of innovation. There is plenty of progress without innovation.

“male sense” Ha Ha, I thought you had a girlfriend.

Happy New Year DH!! Thanks for all of the laughs.

“Irving Azoff, Live Nation’s executive chairman and the manager of numerous major acts, last year told The Wall Street Journal that recorded music represented as little as 6% of some clients’ income?down from 50% a decade ago.”

BUT, BUT, BUT MUSICIANS DON’T MAKE MONEY FROM SELLING ALBUMS! THE GREEDY RECORD LABELS TAKE IT ALL!

It’s not meaningless at all. The top acts are also naturally the ones whose music is going to be ripped off the most.

The point, which you willfully ignored, is that income went from 50% to 6%; a huge drop and one that is comparable to all acts that were on labels, whether major or indie.

There’s no justifying the stealing of this income from musicians.

Sorry pal, no. The link is there so anyone can read the entire conversation and read Masnick’s hilarious and willfully blind piracy apologism.

I pointed out how ridiculous the poster’s statement was about Masnick’s take on things and you don’t like that. Tough.

Its simple Name them, so we can determine if you are lying through you ass or telling the truth.. at present we have to assume you are lying.

A couple months back, I had a really fascinating experience. I had two meetings in a row, each with incredibly successful content creators — people who have embraced new business models and new technologies to amazing results, both creatively and monetarily.

So why not name who they are ??

If they are what you claim, then you should not no issue with naming them, helping to promote them and most importantly allowing us to determine if your claims are true.. (often we find they are not)..

So how can we believe you this time ?, Name them mike, and stop censoring us.

What I found amusing, however, was how at some point, in the middle of each of those meetings, the person I was talking to sat back, laughed, and said “you’re such an optimist about these things!”

If these two people you talk about are what you say, being successful, and making money and so on.

WHY, would they think you are optimistic ? whould they not also be SO OPTIMISTIC ? after all they are doing well, making money, selling content.

And they claim you are optimistic, and therefor you must consider those two highly sussessful content creators, who are doing to consider themselves pessimistic conpared to you.

WHO ARE these two ‘people’ you talk about, that are successful, pessimistic, and who consider you opimistic ?

Can you see how none of this passes the sniff test Mike..

It simple does not smell right, it smells like something made up by you for effect.

If you are not outright lying, you will have no problem naming the two you met with, so we can guage ourselves if you are talking the truth or not..

as it stands, its sounds like an outright lie, just something made up for effect.

Because if those two really existed, and had acheived what Mike said, he would of most certainly named them..

Mike does not name them, becuase either they dont exist, or they do exist but have not reached the level of success mike claims they have..

Either way, Mike you can clear this up with some simple FACTS and the truth.. both of which are free from copyright.. so why not use them ?

Hey Mike,

Happy New Year to you and yours! I truly mean it. A little optimism sounds great to me. We should all be happy for the wonderful things we have. 🙂

Even though I give you a lot of flack because I think you’re hopeless hippie, I really do love your site. More often than not, the stories you post are the very subjects I’m interesting in. I don’t think I’ve gone more than three days in a row without reading your blog in the past 8 months. Obviously we’re don’t see eye-to-eye on most issues, but I truly appreciate the way you make me think about what I do think and believe about things.

Thanks for doing such a great job in maintaining this site, and again, Happy New Year!

AJ

On the other hand, since the legacy media industries are dying, they’ll have less money to buy off Congressmen.

You see, sometimes, according to TD the legacy media industry is dying, and there are all sorts of reason given as to why.

Then at other times, when it suits TD, they will state quite clearly, that the legacy media industry is doing very well.

TD says that when they are trying to say piracy is not hurting mainstream content creators.

But when it suits him, he will say the opposite, and claim the minstraem content creators have the formula wrong and are failing. Like you said.

So depending on what type of argument TD is trying to make, the music industry is either doing very well in spite of file sharing. OR. it is doing badly because of its poor business model..

If you say its successful in one article, and failing in another, one has to think which one if true is which is false. or it can be concluded, that neither are true or false, but just what Mike felt needed to be said for best effect.

In that case, truth, facts and such have no place in Techdirt.

Like what have you EVER seem Mike write about two successful content creators, who do thing different to the ‘normal’ model. And NOT NAME those two people, and show their success ???

The ONLY time is here, And I have to ask why ?

amazing, yes, blame it on the major content providers for dragging their feet on a new scheme that is supposed to put them out of business !!!.

You cannot blame them for not adopting Mike ‘scheme’, you can be critical of how successful that scheme has been in the marketplace. That was done here.

And as far as that goes, it has not been very successful at all..

So its a bit funny that you blame the ‘old’ and working system for not adopting a ‘new’ untried system.

You do not blame all the people who tried the ‘new’ Mikes system first off and failed at the start.. as most artists do.

At least you can put the blame for its failure where is should be..

Hilarious stuff!

They are not attacking their customers, they are attacking people who are willing to take their product illegally, by stealing it. Without paying for it.

That is quite simply against the law, and that is why they go after those who do that. It’s not their customers they are going after.. No. their customers are the ones who legally use their product. The ones who are willing to pay for something they want.

They go after those who are not willing to pay for something they value, and want.. there is a huge difference.

Well did anybody seized the assets of those countries and liquidated their governments?

Broke for states have another meaning, “I don’t believe you will keep your promises”.

The funny part is that third world countries have advanced banking systems and economies and don’t rely on external debt, that is why they were not affected by “the current recession” so much and are growing, they have no strings attached to anyone and hoarded a lot of money to cushion their economies in cases like this, not to mention the clever dispositives they came up with to control inflation and internal debt despite rampant corruption, while other “developed countries” floundered because of inter dependencies.

So no governments can’t go “broke” they can loose trust and others will not trade with them and that would be bad, but broke in the sense we all understand it is not going to happen.

They are not attacking their customers, they are attacking people who are willing to take their product illegally, by stealing it. Without paying for it.

Well that is what you choose to believe and that is fine, is just not based on reality. They are attacking their most loyal customers, you know the ones that care to go after what you are peddling, because if it was me you never see a dime ever. Frankly I need you for nothing and I’m quite happy to not buy, rent or donate anything to you and the likes of you.

About illegality well that remains to be seen, laws change and with enough pressure sooner or later laws will change in favor of what people want then it will not be illegal dude.

They go after those who are not willing to pay for something they value, and want.. there is a huge difference.

How do you know that, do you have any proof?
Of course you don’t because you are talking out of your ass.

Historically Governments ‘go broke’ all the time. You have state governments in the US that are not able to pay for the services and utilities they are required to provide.

So how can you say Governments can’t go broke ?
Governments that have their own currency cannot go broke in terms of that currency because they can always print more.
This of course excludes US state governments and Governments that use an external currency like the Euro (eg Ireland, Spain, Greece.)
Printing money will ultimately cause inflation – but at present we are very far from that scenario in most major economies such as the US, the UK, Germany, France, Japan etc.

The great depression was caused by attempting to fix currency rates against Gold. Increasing technology driven growth increased the supply of goods and services faster than the gold miners could match – resulting in a shortage of money and deflation. The solution was to move to a fiat money system (as we have today) and to start printing money. The great depression is a warning against what happens when you don’t print enough money.

At present we do have one real problem – but it isn’t an imbalance of public vs private spending – rather it is the trade deficit with China – largely the result of the Chinese having held their currency artificially low for many years. Latterly this trade deficit has been financed by loans from China. At present the Chinese don’t seem to realise how dangerous this situation is to them. They seem to think that it is our problem. Actually it is theirs. What exactly are they going to do when (not if) we default?

Live Nation dude?
Seriously?

Now explain why the top 100 musicians today are paying more taxes than they did 10 years ago if they are not making more money?

Those claims sure are suspicious to me.

Quick question who here will pay to see Bozo Bono sing?

I sure am not and I was a fan.

90%??? LOL You pulled that out of your ass, didn’t you?

You described the pirates perfectly. Nice work.

There is very little forcing of customers in any business. Any force that exists comes from the consumers own desires. Nobody brings a CD of music and puts a gun to peoples heads in order to make them buy it. The consumer wants the music.

The problem is that piracy has taught an entire generation that music is “free”. They no longer consider it something that should be paid for. They won’t buy the CDs, they won’t listen to commercial radio, they won’t pay for satellite radio, and they won’t use websites that include a commercial aspect that pays for the music.

The real challenge is in convincing these people that music is something they should pay for, because it is worth paying for. Their terms right now are “do it all, do it for free, and give it to me in a lossless FLAC”. That isn’t a business model, that is a waste of time.

With concert sales down and ticket prices forecast to drop, it is clear that even the scarce goods aren’t getting enough takers. There is a whole generation of people who just aren’t inclined to pay for anything, they would rather wait for the pirates concert video instead.

Yes, there are (and will be) plenty of failures. In any shifting market, some people shift onto solid ground, and others end up standing on quicksand. I hope that TD isn’t shy in 2011 to show that there are some rather significant failures in the process, and accept that the pet theory (cwf) isn’t always the answer. A less strident message would probably work a whole bunch better.

Successes are rare, and they should be celebrated. However, the few successes don’t prove the theory, and realistically we still have very few “new” music models that are working out to reasonable (career) levels.

Perhaps 2011 can be the year where TD backs up just a little bit and starts to look at their theories with a little more of a critical eye, perhaps accepting that it doesn’t all work.

It workds better than trying to stop the unstoppable.

Online piracy as you called is people showing one another what they like, yes it damage record sales, but not the others sources of revenues.

What doesn’t work and will never is trying to force people into compliance when they hold the power to not buy.

People pay for music, they just won’t pay to get a record of it anymore, that is not going to happen, they also will not repay nobody to remake their own collections that business model is dead, is gone, there is no coming back.

It has been a decade since I last spent any money on a CD or music from big labels and acts. Since the Sony DRM fiasco, Bozo Bono and Mickey act, Metallica ranting and suing everyone. Am I going to rent(there is no buying music) music from those people?

Hell no!

Am I going to buy tickets to see those people?

Hell no!

The number of people getting pissed is just increasing.

Also the older generation is not buying(renting really because people don’t buy music they rent it because of copyright).

Does your idea of execution include market success? I’ve seen ideas executed, products created that worked and then no one bought them. Is a ‘get your car out of the snow’ widget that works but does not sell really progress?

I think this video summarizes Techdirt nicely–

I bet Mike is like David Asman– sitting between two Joes in the video- The One Joe smoking a Cigar, and the other Joe with a bottle of Champagne.

Start this video 3:40 in–

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4479794/outrage-continues-over-snow-removal/

how about you just tell use who the two you claim to have talked too ??

just NAME them, you’ve always named people you claim are doing very well.

I would like you to name those two people so we can all see that you are no lying, and just making this story up..

If you are making it up, that is quite sad, and shows what levels you are willing to go to.

If you are not lying, you will be happy to name those two people so we can confirm you are not lying..

Either way, your failure to answer this simple question confirmed that you are lying in this case..

otherwise you would have said the name straight away..

Rose, not being able or willing to name the two he talks about, is for a reason..

What could that reason by ?? it would not to be to protect them, because he claims they are highly successful, if that is the case, why not let us judge for ourselves.

That fact that you do not want to know who they are, just looks like you totally believe 100% what mike is telling you..

And it is clear from this, that is not the case. If he is willing to make claims about people, and himself, he should be able to back up those claims..

Otherwise, again, he just looks like a dirty, nasty, liar, who is doing it to get money from you..

If I make a truthfull statement, and someone calls me a liar, I will PROVE I DID NOT LIE, on principle, I will not have someone call me a liar if I did not lie..

But Mike does not seem to think that way, that means either two things, 1. IT IS A LIE, and mike is ashamed of it and wont admit he lies to his readers.

Or it is not a lie, and for some, unknown reason for the first time in mikes like he refuses to name two artits who have been successful with an alternate method.

But he will not name them at all..

Or defend himself,, I know Mike you cannot defend youself, when you know you are guilty as charged…

So why bother even trying, and Rose why appologise for him??

I read everything, even between the lines….

The fact is this, and im sure you have read many many of mikes posts, can you tell me out of the probably thousands of Mike’s post..

Can you show ONE example, where Mike is talking about the success of someone using an alternate method, and that Mike does not NAME, and promote for that ?

Thousands of articles, from mike he ALWAYS NAMES THEM, to show how well they are doing, and to help promote them..

The fact he did not do it in this article, can ONLY mean one thing, to most thinking readers.. WHY ??

And what reasons can you think of as to why, because if he named them, people like me would look them up, to confirm if they are successful or not..

If they are not, then that is a lie from mike, and if he lied about that, why would he not lie about the entire thing..

Just make it all up for something to say..

Why would two artists who are doing very well according to Mike, consider Mike optimistic ? would they also be optimistic, after all they are doing well.

And Rose…

Just because you do not want to ask such probing questions, and prefer not to know..

Im sure many readers here do read that and wonder why on earth Mike would not just say who they were, for what reason could he be not willing to name them.

And the ONLY conclusion you can draw, is that it is a lie from the start..

If someone called me a liar, I would do everything to prove that was not the case, Why does mike not do the same..

I assume he would, if he could prove it was not a lie.. I would, anyone would..

The ONLY reason someone would not try to defend themselves agaist the accusation of a lie, would be if that was true, and they have no defense agaist it.. that is where Mikes stands at present..

Holy God, I think Darryl’s snapped. I’m seriously worried about what he’ll do if Mike has the audacity to not name those two people.

Liar.

well said, and watch all the excuses that are put forward, to try to justify it as not theft, and not damaging to the artists.

The only excuses I see is people like you that try to justify real theft and misappropriation of culture to continue this absurd unsustainable endeavor you call “copyrights”.

If that is the case, I will be happy to defend my point and prove that I have not lied..

All I ask is that Mike has the balls to do the same.

SO ok, you accused me of being a liar, show me where I have lied please ?

There is nothing wrong that if you think I have lied, you should be able to tell me where I lied, and explain how it was a lie and so on..

In other words, you have the balls and facts to back up your claims.

I made a claim about Mike, and he has not replied to it at all, If I am accused of lying, that is fine, show me where and I will defend myself.

I am not going to be called a liar if I am not one..

But Mike seems to accept it, and is unwilling to defend his position..

I have to ask why, and the ONLY reason why Mike would not defend his integrity, is if it was a lie to begin with.

Its clear by his own account it was a lie, from what he said, and what he said those two different people did on two different occasions IN A ROW.

And you think for some reason that is “true” ??

So Mr, Anonymous Coward, how about telling me what my lie is please.. or STFU.

Fact is Mike,

No one ever expected you to name them, we KNOW it’s impossible for you to do so.

You restored my faith in your Mike, there was never any question that you would name these two people, allthough In no time in the past have you even NOT names someone who you claim is doing well with alternate tech content.

Just his once, and the reason why you did it this once, is so clear, that ANYONE can see it just for what it is..

The fact that you did not just say the names and be done with it, and you fluff around the point, and call for ‘privacy’ as if that has ever been your concern in the past.

But you open the door, you tried to gain points from who you associate with, and when questioned on it, it appear that those points you gained were the result of a lie, a falsehood.

A lie to allow you to make a point, and nothing else.

If it was not, ANYONE would defend their statement, but you do not, what reason could there be for your willingness to be accused a lier.

It must be because there is some substance to my claims, backed up by your lack of ability to defend your claims..

So based on that, what else do you tell us that is not true, what else do you just ‘make up’ for effect ?

How can we trust anything you say ? when the best you can do when called on a lie, is say “no it was not”..

and “privacy”.. that is just not how an honest person conducts themselves.

Hi Mike

I love your posts. I don’t see you as being filled with rage, rather I like that you point out the obvious, and allow me to come to my own conclusion. So many blogs seem to simply push an agenda and I loose interest. Your carefully written articles amaze me most of the time and I fear that you know more than you are letting on. .I love your work. Keep it up see you next year.

In other words, you have the balls and facts to back up your claims.

I made a claim about Mike, and he has not replied to it at all, If I am accused of lying, that is fine, show me where and I will defend myself.

Wait, where are your “facts to back up your claims”? You’ve accused Mike of lying but have no facts or proof. You’re lying about Mike being a liar, so PROVE that you aren’t lying.

Damn it, I think I just got tricked into arguing this…

To summarize,

not reveal count their money I have explained myself

Got it.

Paul, your replies are always a challenge, mostly because I think you intentionally try not to understart. That or you are just not getting it. Let’s go bottom up:

How does the fact that Palmer has worked with Live Nation, founded in 2005 for the express purpose of promoting the “new” model (concentrating on finite goods that cannot be infinitely copied) somehow disprove said model?

Live Nation has been shunned here before, because their so called 360 deals are essentially just the dreaded record labels trying to muscle in and take a big cut of the ticket prices too. Live Nation is the incarnation of big music taking it all over. You would think that considering Amanda Palmer’s opinions of record labels, that she wouldn’t want to deal with the devil again.

Are you trying to say that recording is the only way to make money from music (demonstrably untrue) or that no other part of the industry will ever be as big (then why is it the only part in major decline)?

So close! You almost got it, but you still fail. They aren’t the only way to make money from music, but none of the other business models out there are really adding up to a hill of beans compared to it. As for “other parts”, consider that 2010 was the year that concert attendance dropped, and 2011 is the year that ticket prices will drop to try to keep up.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/touring/concert-ticket-prices-expected-to-drop-in-1004137184.story

So don’t try to make it as if the rest of the music industry as a whole isn’t suffering as well… they are!

They’re clearly throwing a lot of money away of trying to save their old business model, including significant amounts of lobbyist money.

What you aren’t getting is that failing buisnesses just don’t have that type of money. If they are firing employees by the dozens and shutting down their businesses, where would they find millions to fund “powerful lobbying efforts”. Either they are broke and failing, or wealthy and powerful. The only point is that TD needs to choose one position and stick with it, not change sides every other post when needed.

If they are truly dying, all the lobbying in the world won’t help, and they shouldn’t be able to afford it anyway. So where are we really?

> Live Nation has been shunned here before, because their so called 360 deals are essentially just the dreaded record labels trying to muscle in and take a big cut of the ticket prices too. Live Nation is the incarnation of big music taking it all over. You would think that considering Amanda Palmer’s opinions of record labels, that she wouldn’t want to deal with the devil again.

It’s so funny when shills lie, because it’s so easy to point out that they lied:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1910593046.shtml

Which discusses Live Nation’s 360 deals as “a step in the right direction,” though it does question how successful they’ll be as the specific structure was risky. But nowhere does it say that this was just a repeat of the big record labels.

Shill = fail.

> They aren’t the only way to make money from music, but none of the other business models out there are really adding up to a hill of beans compared to it. As for “other parts”, consider that 2010 was the year that concert attendance dropped, and 2011 is the year that ticket prices will drop to try to keep up.

Someone doesn’t understand the difference between aggregate data and individual results. The point that Techdirt has raised time and time again is that individuals can do better off than they would have otherwise by following these models.

The fact that some of the highest level concerts have hit their peak really has no impact at all on the vast, vast majority of musicians who make their living elsewhere.

> What you aren’t getting is that failing buisnesses just don’t have that type of money. If they are firing employees by the dozens and shutting down their businesses, where would they find millions to fund “powerful lobbying efforts”.

Did you not read? Karl gave specific numbers which support both of those things. You can still have a lot of money for lobbying, while your revenue is dropping.

“Either they are broke and failing, or wealthy and powerful.”

No. There’s a pretty big segment in between those two things. Kinda insane that you can’t see that. Are you really that stupid?

So close! You almost got it, but you still fail. They aren’t the only way to make money from music, but none of the other business models out there are really adding up to a hill of beans compared to it. As for “other parts”, consider that 2010 was the year that concert attendance dropped, and 2011 is the year that ticket prices will drop to try to keep up.

Hmmm…just the other day a game bundle sold 1.8 million and surprise the producers promised to give the source code and everyone was allowed to choose the price. Is that peanuts?

Content producers on YouTube are making 6 figures is that peanuts?

Fine don’t go make money then.

So don’t try to make it as if the rest of the music industry as a whole isn’t suffering as well… they are!

That is just plain dishonest, people pointed out already why that is irrelavant and you keep trying to say that piracy is somehow responsible for tickets prices on live shows are you retarded?

This is rather clearly false. Even if you make net nothing from your label contract, you still made a ton. You got recording made, you got product out there, you got publicity, support, and at least partial tour support up front. All of that isn’t nothing.

Well that can be said about piracy too, if you give it away everything for free you got publicity, you got exposure, you got songs made and distributed that will support the touring part and the merch part so pirates actually help there.

The kickback is most clearly about high ticket prices, high fees, and so on. What has happened is simple: Piracy is hurting one part of the business, and everyone (including TD) has said that they can make it up by selling the scarce, which includes concert tickets. Ticket prices went up, the number of concerts went up, and surprise, ticket sales tanked.

The problem is simple: There isn’t enough market to support that many acts doing that many concerts at that price level. They are running out of suckers to overpay for concert tickets, because that is what is paying for the rest of the business model. It is a clear failure of proportioning of costs, where recorded music sales would cost fans a small amount each, concert ticket sales are hitting a smaller group much harder. As soon as they figure out they shouldn’t pay, or they run out of money to pay, the model entirely collapses.

Your BS is incredible dude.
If there is not enough market, piracy or no piracy there wouldn’t be any more sales either way because there is no market.

Maybe you think that one person or band making 200 million dollars in profits is not enough, but I know plenty of people who wouldn’t mind.

Are you saying that we all should be sad because Bono will not be able to buy a island anymore and instead he will need to settle for a mansion somewhere?

There is more money total, but there are more people fighting for it, and more people thinking they have a chance in this new music economy. The results? Income per artists aren’t going up. Income remains the same (see the British reports for an understanding that total music business income is pretty flat for 10 years) but more than twice as many people are trying to get a piece of the pie. As an independent artist, you are having to fight even harder to pay your bar tab, let alone make a living.

And that is a piracy problem how?
If more people are making money and not just 10% that is all good on my book, if the top 100 can’t afford a jet this summer that is cool since that means the other 90% are getting more money and probably be happy to pay for food.

See I can make up scenarios too.

Someone doesn’t understand the difference between aggregate data and individual results. The point that Techdirt has raised time and time again is that individuals can do better off than they would have otherwise by following these models.

In the end, it always boils down to the same things. Encourage people to pillage and plunder the existing music industry, pirate their material, and try to wipe out their business. The only reason? So that individual small acts can afford to trade their draft beer for a mixed drink when they are playing at the local club.

For the rare exceptional success cases in music (the sainted cory smith, as an example), there are millions of pirated copies made and sales lost. Oh yes, the sales are lost, people learn not to spend, learn not to buy. You will say “they had no intention of buying” and that is the point: They had no intention because they have learned not to buy.

The trade off is literally stepping over dollars to pick up pennies, only desirable because the people picking up the pennies felt they would never have a chance at dollars.

As for Live Nation, I notice you carefully selected the story. You might want to try:

http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?company=live+nation&edition=techdirt

First one is a story about Live Nation annoying people, conflicts of interest, etc. The 3 year old speculative story you point to has sort of been trumped by reality. But you knew that.

Geee Nice try Rose, HAHAm,, but classic FAIL,, that is quite sad, I thought you were smarter than that !!!.

I guess I was wrong..

What did I lie about again Rose ?? something about statistics ?? hahaha

Sorry Rose, you just make yourself look like a petty, childish, FOOL..

I will admit to lying when I lie, when are you going to admit to being stupid ??

I got a statictical probability wrong, (so you say), and thatmeans I am a liar.

I will admit one thing, Rose,, you blew it big time, on this one.

You come acress of desperate to attack me, but with nothing to do it with..

You LOSE..

And again, If Mike is not a bald faced liar he will detail the names of the two he ‘claims’ to have met..

Rose M. Welch,, im sorry, but this time you have reached a new low..

I will refer to your post whenever in the future, you actually do try to make some logical sense..

I will happily throw this in your fact time and time again..

ANYONE who reads what you just said Rose, will assume, you are desperate for prove a point, but incapable of developing ANY FORM OF DESENT ARGUMENT.

(you got statistics wrong, so you LIED)..

You Rose are wrongly accusing me of being a liar, fair enought,, I am correctly accusing you of being petty, stupid, purile, and above all wrong..

The statistical probably of what Mike claims of occuring is ZERO, there I have expressed to you the statistical probablility of that occurrence..

IT IS ZERO,, that why it is a lie.

lets do some analysis..

What are the chances that Mike knows 2 people who are successsful in alternative tech content creation, and money making???

What are the chances that Mike would meet with 2 such successful people and not be willing to name them to celibrate their success.

what are the chances that he would meet these TWO different people, the rare two who make money with alternate tech content

IN A ROW..

What are the chances that the two rare people that he met with who are successful in new tech content creation and money making WOULD “sit back, laugh, and blah blah”.

What are the chances of two people who are successful in new tech content creation, that Mike promotes, consider Mike to be pessimistic ?

Why would they think he was pessimistic, they are doing what make suggests and they are doing VERY WELL, That would have to make them optimistic, and would also make the view Mike as optimistic, and not pessimistic..

What are the chances that two people who are successful in a certain technique, be pessimistic, or consider someone else who supports that technique to be pessimistic ?

Again, Rose, I dont know what happend to you on this one, usually you manage to provide intelligent responses..

But this time, it appears you lost it..

I will happily admit to lying, when and IF I ever do so..

but you can spend a little time thinking about statistical probabilities.. it is quite a joke really..

Since when has mike relied on statistics to prove his case, he never does… He always used real people, real success or failure, he always names to people, and especially if they are claiming some level of success in the new tech content area.

The ONLY time, I have ever seen mike NOT do that is here, what is the statistical probability that Mike is lying, by all measures it appears to be approaching 100%..

The fact that Mike has refused to name those two, turns that probable 100% into a definate 100%.

Certainly beyond “reasonable doubt”..

And when you or mike ever use statistics to prove a point you just know that they (you) have nothing left. As most of the time you spend you’re lives trying to downplay statistics, studies and so on.. thinking personal opinion and guess work is somehow better. than facts..

But if you think about statistical probabilities of that occurrence, you will see it for what it is,, bullshit..

What are the chances

That:

Mikes KNOWS TWO people in alternate tech content who are successful.

Mikes has meetings with TWO IN A ROW (if he knows of two).

During the meetings, they BOTH the person I was talking to sat back, laughed, and said “you’re such an optimist about these things!”

What are the odds that someone who is successful ‘in these things’ would think that anyone else who supports ‘these things’ would also not be optimistic ?

What would be the statistical probability of that occuring Rose ?

A billion to 1, a million to 1, ???

Why would even one person who is making money and doing well in an alternate tech content field, that Mike promotes, consider Mike pessimistic ?

Why would TWO of them that that ??

What is the statistical probability that TWO of them that are doing well in alternative tech content believe Mike was pessimistic ?

Clearly the see mike as optimistic from the start, after all they are folling Mikes advice, so they MUST have seen the benefits of it, and not considered the potential downside.

So they would consider Mike from the start to be optimistic, it just does not make sense that they would use Mikes techniques, and make money and success and view his techniques and pessimistic !!

And if it does not sound right, it is NOT right, and Rose, if it is not right, it is what it is..

Which as I have stated, as far as anyone here can tell, it is a straight out lie..

Rose you do yourself no favors by supporting it either..

Yes, but in the end, fewer people having real success, and more people barely hanging on to a dream at best. It is a simple issue really, if you have a pizza and split it between two people, you each get a decent meal. Split it with 100 people, and you are lucky to get a piece of crust. If you think it is an improvement to have 100 people fighting over who gets to eat the box the pizza came in, then you are right.

Realistically, the whole internet give your music away thing has just made people think that they are better than they are. We aren’t getting tons more great music, if anything, we have less. We have more music, but less of it is above what most of us would sing in the shower.

All that it means is that you agree with the agenda, so you don’t object.

It is the same reason some people can watch Faux News, and others can’t, or why some people can check out Huffington post or Drudge.

If you pay attention, there is a very strict agenda on TD. Much of it is centered on creating certain truths out of whole cloth or by intentionally misreading date. Falsely attributing things to groups is another classic here.

Turn on your critical reading skills, if you find yourself nodding your head too much, it means you aren’t thinking for yourself!

Really?

Ask the top 100 artists on Jamendo if they are sad by giving away their music for free.

Isn’t art supposed to be exceptional?

It’s like looking in a mirror!

Of course it is, I love punk music do you like that?

What is great for some is crap for others dude.

People celebrate Van Gogh I think he was crap.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The only fact that is on the table is that you depend on people, you create a fantasy and sell that, once you start shiting on that fantasy, that no longer appeals to people.

No one will pay you for being an a-hole.

Exceptionally boring.

Darryl, I think you should call your sponsor… You don’t have to face this alone.

Actually, the 1.8 million for the game bundle is for the whole bundle. Once broken down, they are only looking at a couple of hundred thousand each. It is still better than having all your work pirated, but won’t pay the bills for them to make another great product.

That is just plain dishonest, people pointed out already why that is irrelavant and you keep trying to say that piracy is somehow responsible for tickets prices on live shows are you retarded?

Cause and effect: If the artists, artist management, and all the other players behind the scenes aren’t making income through record sales, they make the money up somewhere else. No, it isn’t all of the ticket price, but it is one of those things that has contributed to signficant ticket price increased.

I suspect if you could get the right data to graph things out, you would see that piracy and ticket prices have pretty much increased hand in hand. In the 10 years since Napster arrived, ticket prices have skyrocketed. It is also partly as a result of more and more 360 deals, where parts of the music industry that were depending on record sales are now profiting from concert ticket sales.

Retarded is just not looking past the end of your nose.

Once again, you failed because you start out not wanting to understand anything.

The music industry, in simple terms, is broken into a very few parts: recorded music sales, live music sales, licensing, and merchandise. Is there any “other” that I missed? Live music sales and merchandise sales are often linked, as the best time to sell stuff to people tends to be when they are at your shows. “fans” will overpay significantly for an exclusive tour t-shirt, which has been produced in a million copies.

2010 was the year that concerts were cancelled, tours went bust, people grumbled about ticket prices, and (shocking for some here) recorded music sales increased.

I will let you draw you own conclusions.

I’ll try to explain this once more… Their business model is no longer workable in the 21st century. The writing is on the wall, and has been there for more than a decade.

How many other industries will generate 27 billion dollars in a year? Sure, it is lower than it was, but holy crap! We are all getting excited that some middleman internet site has paid out 150 million in it’s existance, and that is some sort of shining success, and 27 billion a year is some sort of failure.

Their business model is entirely workable, if it wasn’t for rampant piracy. You still want the music, you still desire it, you still load it into your Ipod, you just don’t feel compelled to pay for it.

As for the “hoops” they make you jump through, would you care to explain? Buy the CD, rip it to your Ipod, have a nice day. How hard is that? Oh wait, there is that one loophole, the one where you have to pay. I know, you don’t want to jump too high.

Have you ever seen one of those spastic, foot stomping, whining, screaming, children that the parent has to keep on a leash and harness at all times? That is what immediately sprang to mind when coming across all the comments by Darryl. Mike must have the patience of a saint. I would have drop kicked Feral Darryl a long time ago. Hmm, does that make me a bad person?

We agree on that, that is exactly why I asked if you were retarded.

Artists get an advance when they sign to a label. To record with, buy new instruments, and live on. They get royalties once the advance is paid off. If the band fails, the label eats that loan, and the band is dropped.

Of course, that fact is something you would never hear about on a piracy blog like this.