musicFirst is an organization founded by a group of co-aligned cartels. Collectively, they have not earned profits by competing on the basis of creating better products. Rather, they conspire amongst each other to maintain high prices in order to extract monopoly profits. When even that fails as the market routes around a broken business model, they resort to Plan B.
Plan B, of course, has been spectacularly successful. Essentially they compensate (via lobbying jobs, campaign contributions, and movie cameos) elected officials to pass laws that guarantee these dieing businesses a certain level of revenue. They enlist the FBI & other law enforcement personnel to act as their private police force against the interests of the citizens they are supposed to serve & protect. And finally, public prosecutors serve as their personnel law firm, pursuing average citizens and imprisoning them for what are, at worst, minor torts.
Given the massive sense of entitlement that these failed industries have come to expect, it's no wonder that they have no idea how real businesses work. As the RIAA continues to fail financially, there only recourse is to enlist the state to increase their legally mandated compensation. So, of course they expect Pandora and other businesses to do the same. Not making enough money? Just tell people to give you more! Maybe Pandora should follow the RIAA playbook and begin bribing (because that's what it is) government officials to force advertisers to spend a minimum amount advertising on Pandora each year.
Of course! That's the real solution. Let's make Apple & GM & Coca-Cola support the lazy, unethical RIAA executives by forcing them to each spend $100 Million/ Year on Pandora so that Pandora can continue to pay government-mandated monopoly rents to 4 failing businesses. Or maybe it's 3. I dunno, but pretty sure it will be zero eventually, then maybe we can move past all this. Once the rent-seekers are removed from the equation, I suspect revenue will increase at a greater pace and artist income will likely double or triple as the inefficiencies of the dieing record labels are eliminated and the middlemen found themselves out of a job.
The studios & TV companies have been giving away DVDs for years with the purchase of new televisions and DVD players. I think it's more a case of saving the $1 it costs to print each disk rather than a real attempt to push the New Crappy DRM.
This shouldn't need to be said. But the price itself is obviously part of an art project. It's an exploration, the price is supposed to elicit deep thoughts from the reader, not compel them to buy. If Mr. Cushing got the point of the pricing, he certainly failed to convey his understanding in the article.
Totally disagree with the summary statement, "good to see France apparently realizing that punishing the public is even worse."
While 3 strikes is anticonsumer and a mess as implemented, at least (in theory, if not in practice) its effect was limited to users that were infringing. The new approach would be 10x worse, with the government attempting to insert themselves into the decisions of every company on the internet. One step closer to governments legislating the results of search queries. One step closer to destroying revolutionary communications platforms like Flickr & YouTube. One step closer to chilling business innovation.
This is one tiny step forward, and two huge steps backwards.
Thanks for picking up the story. The good news part of this story is that since Flickr reformed their take down process, fraudulent notices now only result in temporary removal of the images. Still a lot of misconceptions in the Flickr community that Flickr "must" immediately comply with a takedown notice, as if there are automatic penalties for inquiring with the subject first or evaluating the validity of the notice themselves.
How is this insightful? Listen what B&N did is crappy. But nothing was deleted off the device. The customer was simply not allowed to download copies of books he already bought. That's a shitty policy. But it's not at all the same thing as remotely deleting content from a device.
Well, it would be stupid to drag the whole group. But two people with about 4 liters of water each, sun protection, flashlight the compass and start hiking 2 hours before sunset. Yeah, if you got a couple marathoners or hikers, we'll get to Point B in 15 hours.
Because I agree with Obama on about 80% of the key issues, such as tax policy, health care reform. He doesn't seem inclined to start new wars and has actually wound down one war (even if he wound one up at the same time). Because amongst all the candidates on the ballot, I believe he will be the best president. Because I'm not a one issue voter.
I won't begrudge anyone for voting Garry Johnson, but nor will I humor their smugness & pride as they congratulate themselves for bucking the 2 party system while putting down citizens that support major party candidates.
The system needs to be blown up, but it's more effectively done on the state & perhaps congressional level. Were there a middle-of-the-road candidate that put forth a great campaign and advocated for sensible reforms that matched my own instincts, I may well vote for that person. As would millions of others. Alas, that White Knight has been around the corner for a few hundred years, and will be for a few hundred more.
President Obama will get my vote. But he won't get a nickel from me this year, unlike 2008 when I poured in a fair bit. And it's because of this-- lack of transparency, continued obsession with secrecy, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP. Etc. I think there were about 3 times when I said to myself, "now THAT'S the guy I voted for!"
Wouldn't surprise me to see 4 years pass without it happening again.
To be fair, this is the opinion pages, not the reporting pages, but the WSJ is supposed to have a pretty high bar for getting facts right, isn't it? And I would assume that applies to the opinion pages as well.
It's just not true. The WSJ opinion pages are in line with the Washington Times and the very worst of the reactionary wing of the Republican Party. It's as bad as the WSJ news pages are good.