Re: Re: Re: Why Are Canadian Regulators Telling Music TV...
I'm sorry, but I disagree - the number of good musical acts from the time BEFORE the CRTC imposed Canadian Content Regulations (1971) is much smaller.
All of the bands named benefit DIRECTLY from CanCon regulations, because they get airplay from it. Yes, they're good bands, but so were a whole bunch of bands relegated to obscurity pre-1971.
Like I said in my original comment - it was WAY cheaper and easier to play American content back then - and because the big US recording companies were marketing the hell out of their records, also more of a sure bet.
Re: Why Are Canadian Regulators Telling Music TV...
Actually, I think the regulating of lyrics (Dire Straits' Money for Nohting) was done by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, not the CRTC. In fact, the CRTC sent a letter to the CBSC telling them to review that decision.
As to the Canadian Content regulations, I'm old enough to remember when there wasn't much of a Canadian music industry. It's just way cheaper and simpler to let American music and entertainment do the heavy lifting, but it doesn't promote Canadian culture.
Canada sits next to the loudest, most prolific provider of entertainment in the world. Without putting these regulations in place, there would be no Canadian stories being told.
Of course, there also wouldn't have been Corner Gas, so it's a mixed blessing.
I do think that the CRTC needs to be revised substantially, and given a mandate to protect consumers from the Bell/Rogers duopoly, but not everything they do is bad.
there IS no effective competition in Canada. There are five big ISPs in Canada. Between them, they have 96% market share. Who's going to push them to innovate/provide new services at good prices if the government doesn't?
This situation isn't going to get better till there are more ISPs in Canada.
re: "Mike typically suggests that you add value, whereas what the movie studios are doing here is removing value. "
Well, true - you could say that they're removing it. That's a function of them "getting" the concept of RtB:CwF a little late in the game. If, from day one of DVD rentals, they had offered DVDs with no special features to BB, and sold ones with Special Features through retail, this would be totally a RtB implemenation. It's just that they're coming at it late.
The Special Features are the major reason why I buy movie DVDs though - if I just want to watch the flick, there's a number of different venues to see it much cheaper. But if I'm willing to pony up $15 or $20 for a DVD, there had *better* be something other than the movie on it.
Case in point - the Iron Man 2 DVD that I recently purchased, pre-viewed from BB, had NO special features at all. I was, to put it mildly, disappointed, and will be purchasing fewer DVDs from BB if this trend continues. I'll probably still buy DVDs, but I'll more carefully examine the boxes to see if it's worth spending the greater amount.
I dunno, Mike. I am a huge movie fan, and as far as I can see - this *is* what you keep talking about, albeit done poorly. I came to the conclusion that I was not going to buy any more pre-viewed DVDs at my local BlockBuster precisely because they don't tend to include the special features. I *like* the special features, the "Making Of..."s and the deleted scenes. I have no problem if they sell limited versions to BB - it seems in line with your "offer more than the free version", so what's the problem?
Admittedly, it was uncool of them to have the same menu, and tease the viewers, but the idea of selling limited versions to the rental companies isn't all bad. IMHO
You said "The primary goal of the TSA is to protect us from someone that would use transportation including planes as a missile or save the lives of passengers. "
I would disagree - from where I sit, the primary goal of the TSA is to make it LOOK like the government is trying to protect people from terrorists. It certainly seems to be ineffective, and bureaucratic, and authoritarian.
The best things that happened to improve security on planes was the addition of a secure cockpit door, and the willingness of passengers to fight back against those that would attempt to take over a flight.
'Isn't Yelp just a bigger and louder "word of mouth"?
When did word of mouth become illegal?'
It's not illegal, but now it's both widespread and persistent - which means that's it's not "word of mouth" any more, it's publishing. Traditional "word of mouth" is ephemeral - it fades, and it's localized. If someone screwed up badly, they could move, and leave it behind them. With Yelp, and other services, and the self-publishing options available to everyone, it's harder for someone to leave their mistakes and incompetence behind.
This can be very bad for them - but good for the rest of us.
Of course, the surgeon can easily avoid this by doing good work. And setting expectations low enough that he can exceed them. And by charging reasonable rates. You know - basic customer service best practices. :-)
Internet Mob Justice is not always just. It can be mistaken, and it can be devastating. But in this case, I think it's deserved.
She didn't get run out of business because mean people said nasty things about her because of one mistake. That would be unjust, and I would stand up and say "Hey - she made a mistake, and people make mistakes."
She regularly misappropriated other peoples' writing. She showed no contrition, and refused to make the minimal restitution requested by the injured party. She even went so far as to mock them, referring to her decades of experience in the editing field. Her business, it seems, regularly used other peoples' work without requesting permission, paying, or even, in some cases, attributing them correctly.
That's not cool. That's not one mistake. That's a pattern of dishonesty. The advertisers were hurt by her actions.
We're in an age of transparency now. Dishonest behaviour WILL come back to haunt you. People WILL find out the scummy things that you did, and they WILL see how you deal with being confronted with your mistakes. Had she been contrite, and made restitution, she'd have been able to continue to work.
Eventually, someone would have found other misappropriated works. Someone would have sued her for copyright infringement. She was playing Internet Russian Roulette, and it was only a matter of time before somebody did a search found an infringement, and brought it to the attention of one of the big media companies. It was inevitable because the internet never forgets. It's going to be interesting to see how business behaviour changes, as their past never quite goes away.
I am sorry to see that she's going to shut down the magazine, but only because that will make it harder for the ripped off authors to get any restitution.
I'm sorry that her actions harmed her advertisers.
But I'm not sorry that "the mob" was all over her.
Re: Re: Professional musicians, legacy players, and "piracy"
"Music workers, those that create or assist creators, have been destroyed in the past 10 years. Half as much money is being spent on music now as opposed to 10 years ago.
Piracy is responsible for that."
You don't think that the advances in technology, like home studios removing some of the need for professional studios, digital distribution of music removing the need for CD Pressing, or even Myspace and Facebook reducing the need for professional marketing for small, startup bands has had any effect on the need for those folks that "assist creators"?