Josh in CharlotteNC 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2290) comment rss

  • On the post: Traditional Publisher Ebook Pricing Harming Authors' Careers

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2012 @ 09:20am

    Re:

    First off, you are comparing GROSS author revenue as an indie to net author revenue under the publisher model. That is to say that the Author may make more initial money selling cheaper e-books on a per unit basis, but from there they have to pay out any marketing and promotion they did

    Pretty hard to compare marketing and other costs when the publishers keep that info hidden. Why don't you provide some studies that show it if you're so confident the publisher model would win out?

    An indie author who is a great writer but a sucky marketer would make much more on higher priced e-books with a publisher, because they would do what he sucks at - marketing the damn thing.

    [citation needed]

    Third, the emphasis on the ethereal "building the platform" is a bit misplaced. There is no proof of any one to one relationship between books sold and "platform" built.

    Seriously? First, "platform" was never used in the article. What you should be referring to is "brand" or "name recognition" and there is mountains of evidence in support of it. How many people will run out and buy the next Stephen King novel just because he wrote it? Thousands - maybe millions. I've got a dozen favorite authors I'll buy books by, just because I've enjoyed the books they've previously written.

    In reality, it could be argued that the very low price e-book makes the author almost irrelevant in the discussion, that people are often buying because it's too cheap not to, and MIGHT be okay.

    Yeah, they'll do it once - which is the whole point - and with near zero marginal cost, there is every benefit to get that first sale and build the relationship. And if it's good, then the next time they see a book by the author, they'll buy that as well. But if the first book sucks? No way I'm even dropping 99 cents on the next one.

  • On the post: Is Trolling Just A Form Of Practical Jokes?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2012 @ 07:02am

    Re: No, trolling is worse. IT's a way to live in denial

    You're accused of being a troll because:
    Your arguments are full of logical fallacies (when they are not twisted nonsense that couldn't be cut through with the jaws of life).
    You don't respond to the questions raised.
    You never back up anything you say with evidence.
    You consistently use personal attacks.

  • On the post: Another Music Service Shuts Down, Blames Ridiculous Licensing Fees

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2012 @ 08:59pm

    Re: Re: Legacy recording industry ???

    Story posted outside of normal business hours. Must have got the off-hours outsourced troll.

  • On the post: Legit Ebook Lending Site Taken Down By An Angry Twitmob Of Writers [UPDATED]

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2012 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The entire concept of putting limits on infinitely copyable bits is dumb, so you're starting from a baseline dumb level and only going higher the more limits that are added.

  • On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2012 @ 06:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They are attempting to reclaim the copyright, but since the work is actually in the public domain, they won't be able to actually reclaim the rights.

    Oh?

    The Supreme Court said different in the Golan case.

  • On the post: Gamestop Offers Glimpse Into Their Used-Games Facility

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2012 @ 06:30am

    Re:

    So 70% of what... how big is the resale business? That would be a good indication of how much used is eating into the new market, because clearly the money isn't just appearing out of the sky, people are buying used.

    70% of trade-in credit goes to new games. Which means the remaining 30% is made up of buying other used games, or just ends up sitting in customer's accounts.

    You make the (time and time again) disproven assumption that everyone who buys used games would have bought a brand new game at full retail price. Please learn some basic economics.

    You also assume that in the absence of a trade-in market, the sale of new games would not drop. Some of those buying a new game are willing to pay the price because they know they'll play it for a few weeks or a month, and then trade it in and be able to recoup some of their money for another game.

    The stat I'd really like to see: how many new games are purchased with any trade-in credit at all. That would be what new sales would drop if used sales were to go away. Those sales are what are going to the most dedicated gamers - the ones who are buying the games near release dates, playing them, trading them in, then getting the next release. They are the most loyal customers. They are the trend setters and the opinion influencers - beware of pissing them off.

  • On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2012 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part

    If it was that widespread, then why can't you supply a link to a credible source that shows they were doing so?

  • On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2012 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books

    Evidence.

    Even a citation from a credible source.

    I'm not asking for much.

  • On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re: the value of books

    Schools don't need to ask permission from a publisher when they use a book to teach.

    Libraries don't need to ask permission to put a book into their collection, index it, and then lend it out. Lend the entire book out for free!

    Why should Google need permission to scan a book, index it, put it in a searchable database, when they do not give out the copies? And they even point to where someone can buy the book!

    Google isn't taking anything away from the authors or publishers. They are adding a tremendously useful service, giving it to the authors and publishers for free, and directing people to where they can buy the books.

    Only in a seriously fucked up permission culture is this not considered a good thing.

  • On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2012 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part

    Giving away big blocks of a book

    Where was Google doing that?

    It's already been asked for dozens of times in the comments here and no one has shown any evidence of it.

  • On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2012 @ 09:50am

    Re: big mistake on Google's part

    Fair use isn't opt-in.

  • On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2012 @ 09:48am

    Re: the value of books

    Naturally they stopped talking about this once the newspaper publishers noticed this and started asking for their share of the $100m.

    Yet when Google removed the newspaper excerpts and links from their service, the newspapers screamed bloody murder.

    That proves exactly that the worth was in the service that Google built, not the content the newspapers wrote.

  • On the post: The Pending Kodak Patent Auction May Create Weapons Of Business Destruction

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2012 @ 07:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Patents are mostly used well and properly, and occassionally not. Why suddenly remove Kodak's right to sell the patents on?

    Patents are by definition a government granted monopoly.

    A monopoly is by definition anti-competitive.

    Monopolies are generally bad for innovation and generally bad for consumers.

    At best, patents are neutral or benign - but not good or proper. At worst, we've all seen the many, many examples of the harm caused.

    If the government grants a monopoly, the government should be able to say how that monopoly is used. Personally, I don't think government should be granting monopolies at all. Maybe a 20 year monopoly over an idea made sense 200 years ago. But now? Product life-cycles are 6-18 months. A company can come from nowhere and be a global powerhouse in 5 years. 20 year monopolies over ideas are beyond absurd.

  • On the post: Curiosity's Mars Landing Video Disappears From YouTube Due To Bogus Copyright Claim

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2012 @ 02:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't have it in front of me, but I was under the impression that the wording was something to the effect of:

    To retain safe harbors, upon receipt of a valid DMCA notice, a provider must promptly takedown the alleged infringing work for a period of 10 days.

    So by putting the content back up prior to the 10 days, Youtube/Google are dropping their safe harbors protection on this video. Someone would need to be insane to try and sue them over it, but we've learned there are many insane lawyers and copyright holders.

  • On the post: Curiosity's Mars Landing Video Disappears From YouTube Due To Bogus Copyright Claim

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2012 @ 12:42pm

    Re: A quick change to the law, and this stops

    sanity...

    Which is why that would never get through Congress.

  • On the post: Curiosity's Mars Landing Video Disappears From YouTube Due To Bogus Copyright Claim

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2012 @ 12:39pm

    Re: This is not an exception

    According to a 2009 study conducted by Google, 57% of DMCA takedown requests--which are supposed to be used only to fight piracy--are instead made by businesses directly targeting their competition, as a form of sabotage. And 37% of requests do not represent a valid copyright claim.

    That seems really high, even to me.

    Was the Google study based on contested DMCA complaints? That's the only way that it seems even remotely possible that you could get as many as 94% bogus claims.

  • On the post: Over 400,000 Homes Have Cut The Cord So Far This Year… But Cord Cutting Is Still A Myth?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2012 @ 10:59am

    Re:

    Yes, losses of 400,000 - and gains somewhere else of 275,000. Net, you are looking at 125,000.

    Wrong. The 400k losses were from traditional cable/satellite companies - Comcast, TimeWarner, DirecTV.

    From the article:
    "Also the newer entrants to the TV market -- Verizon Communications' FiOS TV and AT&T Inc's U-verse -- added 275,000 customers during the quarter."

    While the 275k is more of a switch to the competition, it is competition from a new outside source - not a traditional competitor.

  • On the post: Over 400,000 Homes Have Cut The Cord So Far This Year… But Cord Cutting Is Still A Myth?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2012 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re:

    I figure there is only a little while longer before they can force you to buy cable AND satellite coverage and fine you if you don't.

    This would be amusing.

    Considering the kind of flak that the NEA goes through on a regular basis on even barely controversial art, I'd love to see the broadcasters go through taking tax dollars to make reality tv.

  • On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think you missed the sarcasm. Or maybe irony - of an AC arguing against anonymous posting and saying they should be removed by any complaint, and then another AC issuing said complaint to remove the first.

    Its less funny after explaining it. sadface

  • On the post: Over 400,000 Homes Have Cut The Cord So Far This Year… But Cord Cutting Is Still A Myth?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2012 @ 07:50am

    Cord-nevers

    There's also somethnig to be said for the "cord-nevers" - those in their 20s who have never had a cable subscription. They get their mass media entertainment from Hulu, Netflix, and other online sources. That segment will be even more disruptive than the cord-cutters.

Next >>