I scanned the headline quickly and read "Bruce Jenner Admits That Stopping File Sharing Is Impossible."
Wait. What?
I've known this for nearly fifteen years thanks to the trenchant good advice provided by Freakazoid.
Fast forward to about 8:40 in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Matuxmatux#p/u/28/NbtqW62Ty0s
This has been the single most enlightening article I've read in a long time. It took a very small challenge to my concept of the alpha consumer, and now I can't believe I hadn't thought of this.
An interesting point I think is that in 2000, N'Sync's "No Strings Attached" became the fastest selling album in history.
How appropriate for a manufactured boy band to be the peak of the industry.
No one, I repeat, NO ONE, could criticize those numbers. Over $1mil in just two weeks for a no-name indie bundle with next-to-no marketing? That's fan-fucking-tastic! It's way more than I would have expected.
Won't work. Fun to try, but raw materials in a restaurant are expensive. This isn't being used as a loss-leader, so those economics are out the window. It would be easier to just sell sandwiches, but then the non-profit competes with their for-profit locations. No matter how they do this, Panera will be competing with itself.
Why aren't the employees volunteers? How will local governments respond to lost taxes? What about after people acclimate psychologically? Will they pay full price for a time, but then start skewing downward? The only example has been staying "afloat" since 2003.
Brava! Brava! I wish you all the fortunes that this new media world promises!
Win.
I prefer my future suits with an upright "V" where the serifs lead into kick-ass power shoulders.
The market, in its current situation, has provided 146,000 subscribers with an estimate of about $30mil in revenue.
If we assume that the content on the internet will simply get wider and MORE diverse, that means that they're already near the peak of the subscriber numbers that they are likely to get.
So he thinks that he can run a top-tier newspaper with $30mil per year. And if we assume that he's monetized the 1.9mil registered users to the tune of $.03 per user per day (based on my previous experiences with online advertising), that works out to another $20mil per year. So he's saying that he can run a top-flight newspaper on $50mil per year.
Considering that the NY Times newsroom is a $200mil per year expense, I find that claim dubious.
Well, to Hollywood, NEENER NEENER NEEEEENER!
SlySoft AnyDVD FTW! It gets past all of your encryption schemes, has no restrictions, and you can't touch it.
I just need to wallow in this schadenfreude a bit, because this case has been pissing me off from the very beginning. This judge is absolutely out of her mind.
Even in another country, our issues should be of concern to you. Our companies are global, which means choices here will mirror choices in other countries. Viacom specifically is a French company. And our politics are frequently forced on other countries through back-door deals and trade agreements. Issues here will likely become issues there.
I don't see that as piracy at all. Not in any interpretation of the law.
That would mean recording TV with a VCR is piracy, which has been long-determined to be legal.
Daily Show and Colbert were the only reasons I ever went to Hulu. And Viacom's website interfaces are bad enough where I don't go there. Hulu's design and speed were much better.
Which... no longer applies? I just went to the Daily Show website, and new episodes are shown in a player oddly similar to Hulu.
How long has this been the case? My last trip a number of months ago had a really crappy design.
Ok, so. I guess Viacom FTW.
Still, it pisses me off that content providers are obsessed with taking things AWAY from the centralized media houses and trying to nestle it away on their own sites. Hulu was great because it had so much crap on it. Dailyshow.com has... Daily Show.
YouTube's been blocking access to lots of videos in their mobile version for a long time, now. Music is the most frequent culprit, but sometimes it's weird stuff.
Preventing me from listening to Madonna makes sense (sort of), at least insofar as stopping me from listening to the music on my cell phone will force me to buy the CD, as their logic goes.
But totally random shit like "Powerthirst" won't show up in the mobile version.
Of course, this doesn't stop me at all. I just open SkyFire and view the videos with that. It doesn't stop me. Hell, it doesn't even make it more difficult. It just pisses me off.
They're out of their God-damned minds.
By the NY Times' OWN ADMISSION, their electronic edition has a distribution of 43,884.
If people can just open a browser with the included data plan, no one except perhaps some of those 43,884 ignorant fools will pay for the Times' content.
Everyone (in this crowd, who already hasn't) should watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated," a relatively scathing workup of the MPAA and its rating policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
What the hell?
Aww jeez.
My mom is gonna' be so angry.
Disappointing?!
Were they actually expecting more?