To be clear, I'm not saying that I think Hard Rock is trying to turn into a for-profit label based on that quote, I'm saying that they might be trying to build up these bands to in turn "sell" them to a major label after doing the footwork to make them valuable (they could work out a deal with labels and hammer out a finder's fee for the handover). It's like building a website with the intention of selling it off as soon as you make it semi-valuable (and then just repeating that process over and over).
Again, this is only a bad thing for the band if they end up somehow being contractually obligated to go to a major label if Hard Rock finds one for them. I doubt that's the case, but it gives me pause.
Otherwise, this is amazing. Twelve months of free promotion and tour support and then help getting on a label if you want to. Just being a pessimist, I suppose.
I hope this is actually as awesome as it sounds, but this gives me a tiny bit of pause:
...hopefully find them another label that is going to house and better build them for the long-term.
If there truly are no contracts, then it's not a big deal, but if there's any contract at all, have you seen it? Because that quote leaves the chance that Hard Rock could essentially sell the rights to the band to a major label, thus hopefully recouping their losses and denying the band the opportunity to go label-free (which they usually should be able to after a year of high-profile promotion).
Just saying, there might be something more restrictive behind the scenes, and I'd think most bands still would love this opportunity (because it's a great one), but I suspect something else at play.
Hrm ... this seems to be a different tune than she had March 24. She was very sad that her album had leaked. I realize she claims mostly to be sad about it being leaked unfinished, but she still calls it "stolen" and that it will "mess with sales."
From her Facebook page:
So sad to have art/photos/videos/music keep leaking online unfinished and at the wrong time... The strange thing is that if it's getting stolen and put out by someone who likes me and my music- why would they want to put me through this? and if it's someone who doesn't like me- why would they waste all that precious time on me... why wouldn't they just do something they like. it's confusing/feels shitty/takes much of the fun out (there's too much fun to take all of it out, though) Feels strange just waiting for things i'm working on to get stolen one by one...
pretty bummed out,
She followed up with this the next day:
Really nice to feel so supported- thank you to everyone! Feeling better today. The main reason i was so upset was that having leaks of unfinished work/rough cuts of videos/unedited photos/demos that help me remember stuff for later- feels a lot worse than having something finished leak. If it's finished- then i will share it anyhow- so the leak only messes with sales. This is about privacy... it's like having someone rip out pages from your notebook as you sleep and waking up to things that you were only starting to work on be out there...just violating. But yesterday a friend found his dog after her being lost in the woods for over 40 hours... so yeah, some people have real problems:-)
anyhow, thanks again, reg
Actually, I thought they decided upon Paul Ryan on the Republican side. He's vulnerable, he supported both, and his opponent -- Rob Zerban -- has already come on Reddit to do an AMA and endeared the users with his platform.
I'm a huge Coldplay fan, and I've loved both singles that have come out from their new album, so the day it came out, I immediately went to Spotify. I didn't see it on there, so I figured maybe I'd gotten the date wrong and double-checked. Nope, right day, so what the hell? I Googled and found out that they were holding it from Spotify. I don't really pirate music anymore now that I have an easier method to listen with a Spotify account (that I *gasp* pay for!). So, I still haven't heard the new album, despite being a big fan. Way to serve your fans, Coldplay.
I don't like the "report and cruise on by" method in this sort of case. Why are you reporting a comment that isn't spam? Why are we democratically removing comments that are discussing the topic at hand simply because the sentiment is flawed? How about correcting the flawed arguments like intelligent people instead of covering our eyes and ears? I had to un-hide the original comment (which I didn't even initially see, because it was hidden) simply to understand the intelligent counter-points people were making in reply.
TLDR; Please stop clicking "report" for non-spam comments, regardless of trollism.
Sounds to me like a good book would have it both ways. Who says there only has to be one interesting twist or key plot point? The author can reveal some key point early, but nevertheless include a key twist. That method gives you both a reason to read the introduction with an eye to foreshadowing and build-up as well as a fun surprise at the end.
Although I wasn't blown away by The Book Thief, the author of that used the above method, basically telling you flat out at the beginning that someone important dies at the end. Then in the middle, he tells you some other important people who will die in the end. There's still some unexpected twists before you're done, though.
I'm in the same boat as this woman. Last month I got a letter from Steele, Hansmeier (their tagline being, "A leading anti-piracy law firm") representing Hard Drive Productions, Inc. in a lawsuit against me claiming that I illegally downloaded a pornographic video owned by HDP via BitTorrent. The trouble is -- I didn't download the file in question. (And, for what it's worth, I've never downloaded porn via BitTorrent.)
They have my IP address connected to the download, so obviously someone with access to my router downloaded the file. I have roommates, though. I also have people who visit me frequently. (I live in Vegas, so I get lots of visitors.) I've also opened my WiFi signal from time to time to let people use it without having to go through my security (I use MAC address filters, among other things) and then forget to reinstate the security after they leave.
They wanted me to pay $2,900 to settle for that single file. This is obviously extortion, especially since part of the settlement letter was them effectively saying, "If you don't settle, keep in mind we'll plaster your name all over the Internet to publicly shame you for downloading porn."
So, I've got a few interesting points/questions regarding this situation that I was hoping you or your readers could answer:
1) I know the legal system is screwed up with Internet-age cases, but an IP address alone couldn't possibly be sufficient evidence to win a lawsuit claiming that I personally downloaded this file, could it? I realize this is a flawed analogy -- and please provide a better analogy if you can think of one -- but to me, that's like a gun I own being used in a murder, and me getting convicted based on that evidence alone. You can only prove that my gun was used, not that I was the killer.
2) How was the person who downloaded this file supposed to know that it was illegal? They certainly couldn't have known before they downloaded it, and I sincerely doubt there was any way to know *after* they downloaded it, either. If you have no way of knowing that you've downloaded copyrighted content, how can what you've done be illegal? They're basing their case on people assuming they're downloading something illegally, not knowing they're downloading something illegally. There are plenty of porn companies who gladly put some of their videos on BitTorrent sites as *promotional tools* to whet people's appetites for more.
3) The mass settlement letters are obviously a money grab. What's more, since there's the threat of a lawsuit/public humiliation if you don't accept the settlement, I don't see how this doesn't amount to blatant extortion. (For the record, I declined the settlement since I didn't download the file.)
4) Branching off of the public-humiliation aspect of their extortion letter, would I have a reasonable countersuit for defamation?
5) I?m also considering the idea of using a few of my friends in PR to launch a PR campaign against the porn company and the law firm. Is there any merit to such a campaign?
They have not served me papers yet -- although I did have a phone conversation with a representative from the Steele office wherein I declined settlement. They may not actually serve me since a single file might not be worth their time, and it?s a shakedown anyway, but I?d like to be prepared. I?d also like to preemptively strike in any ways I can. I want to use this case to set an example.
Exactly. For all of the privacy concerns people have regarding Facebook, and all of the credit Google is getting for Circles ... Facebook did that a loooong while ago. Maybe they didn't publicize it enough, but I have tons of groups, all with different permissions. I have Facebook groups for people I don't know (I used to be semi-famous in a very small niche on the Internet, so I get randos), people who I trust with anything and everything, people who get offended by anti-religious humor, people who like to talk politics, and so forth. So, yeah ... you're wrong on this one, Mike, unless I'm missing something.
Thank God for our babysitter government here in the U.S. Heaven forbid I use my personal funds to play a game of skill for pleasure and potential profit.
Guess I'll go play on any of the hundreds of less-reputable, less secure online poker sites that remain open. Thanks for having my best interests in mind!
PS. The tone of the DoJ press release was tilting with all of its horrible poker metaphors. Way to trivialize the fact that you just took six-figure incomes away from thousands of Americans, asshats. Dozens of my friends are now unemployed.
... there actually are people out there who would buy an eBook for $19? That's insane. Even if the hardcover were $25, why would you ever buy an eBook for $19? Sure, the hardback price even says [Bargain] in the title, but that's irrelevant considering the digital edition shouldn't cost that much regardless of the hardback price.
Heroes came to mind for me with this post, as well. I personally thought that was an effective use of product placement. It wasn't until the second season when the cheerleader got all excited about the Nissan Rogue that I connected the dots that the Versa was an obvious product placement. It fit the story in an unobtrusive way why he kept saying the car's name, and I actually found myself imitating the line as a joke with friends here and there, proving that it was an effective marketing tool that didn't take away from the story.
You say: "'pay what you want' appears to work much better with a charitable component..."
I recall reading about a study (I forget where) regarding an experiment set up around the digital photos you can buy after you get off a rollercoaster. They priced them four different ways to see how people reacted:
1) Fixed price
2) Pay what you want price
3) Fixed, and half goes to charity
4) Pay what you want, and half goes to charity
They found found two things: 1) More people bought with the pay-what-you-want model, resulting in higher total profits, and 2) fewer people paid when charity was involved compared to the same model without charity, but those who did pay paid more than they would have without the charity component.
In the end, the profit for the company was highest with the pay-what-you-want charity component despite, fewer people buying the product.
For my two cents, I think fewer people paid when charity was involved because there was an additional mental transaction cost. You no longer were buying just a photo, you were also donating to a charity. That's two transactions. People wouldn't think of that as, "I'm paying for a photo and some of it is going to charity," they're subconsciously thinking, "I'm paying for a photo and I also have to donate to a charity." They figure out how much they would pay for the photo and how much they would give to the charity, and if the resulting number is in their budget and doesn't make them feel guilty, they'd pay it. That's why fewer people pay, but those who do pay more ... they're actually donating as a separate mental transaction.