I think the gaming industry will flourish even more when fixed pricing is done away with, or at the very least modified. We are seeing it more and more with some titles on Xbox 360 debuting at $40.00 (but those titles are generally re-releases of a year prior, which isn't a great step forward).
Here is my example: I won't buy MW3. I don't want to play it online, so that leaves Spec Ops and Single Player, and that's not worth $60. But the price will never drop below that, unless the game is used and cheap, which Activision gets zero dollars for. Price reduction in the future? Fat chance. So basically, the current pricing plan will not serve me, and Activision gets no money from me. At a lower price point, say $20 or $30, I would consider it, but the price will NEVER drop that low until the game is severely outdated. The point, is that there is a market of people who are willing to STILL PAY, but not your original premium. We are ignored, which creates a lucrative used games market. It would be so easy to beat the used games market, because Gamestop offers almost no benefit to a used game other than a couple bucks off the price in most cases (and the 7 day money back guarantee). Challenge the used game market with lower prices and I'd buy the fresh shiny copy every time.
"What sites like Rapidshare DO every day" ...police their own site? I can think of many many times I've reached a screen saying "This content has been removed by the admins at Rapidshare" (I'm paraphrasing their message).
So your suggestion is that Rapidshare, a site that allows users to share files instantaneously with relatively little web knowledge, is a bad thing because some people use it illegally, which Rapidshare actively cracks down against.
"You don't give a solution for actual infringement"
There isn't one. Tis' the way of the web. It is human nature to share ideas and experience, and any attempt to squash that will always fail.
LOL I saw that just last night. The best part was to make it seem tough the host was like, anyone from boxing, UFC, come show up and I'll put you down out here. It's like, well duh, that's WHAT YOU DO. Put the shoe on the other foot and go step in the ring, they'll do the same to you.
I'm fairly confident if you're even reading this article, you probably aren't in the stage in your life where you need to be reminded about what is and isn't moral. We know armed robbery of a truck is a no-no.
The point Mike was making is that the way the old system works is that the content filters used to be middlemen like publishers. The internet makes middlemen unnecessary, much to their disdain. This has created an avalanche of new content, because anyone can make anything they want available very easily. The issue that this causes is that there are a lot more to choose from, so the new challenge is how to discover things you like versus being force fed them by mainstream labels and publishers like in the past.
Mike isn't preaching that a new set of middlemen come and hide this content from us. Rather, much in the same way we built highways and freeways to get to the places we want to go faster, we need to develop freeways (filters that give us more direct access) to the content we would want. I don't know if you've ever actually used a filter, but they don't hide things by default. They generally provide you options to hide things yourself, so I guess what I'm saying is your argument sucks. Also, learn some grammar.
Re: Masnick the judge of "good" and "bad" !!! for the world.
The definition of GOOD and BAD content is subjective to the individual. I think your issue is that Mike often writes articles with the mindset that the people he's reaching have a basic concept of logic.
Exactly, there is no reason someone like Apple couldn't jump into this realm as deep as Amazon has if they so choose. Amazon is delivering a better service than anyone else at the moment, but it doesn't mean they will be the only ones to ever do it.
If anything, I think the exclusivity contracts are more evil than what Barnes and Noble is doing. I don't personally know (or honestly care to find out) whether or not that is some guarantee they advertise, but if their perogative is that they want to make the claim everything they offer in the store is available for digital consumption, more power to them.
I think a great example of transformation is just in the entire video game market. Games can generally "copy" gameplay features from each other, and no one makes a stink. Take a look at first person shooters and the fact that after Halo 2 did the recharging health, virtually every shooter after that used it (much to my disdain but I digress). I've never seen Bungie whine about it, and really they shouldn't.