But, doesnt 50 cent actually pay for the video, since they take it out of royalties, before he gets paid?
So, UMG gets to deduct the cost of making the video from 50's salary, and then has a right to the profits from advertising on youtube.
See, what you sre being dishonest about is yes, the probably have the legal right to do so, but that doesnt make it the right thing to do. That is what people get upset about, OF COURSE UMG can do it. But we also feel powerless as entities like UmG get to make all of the rules, and stack the deck, because their money provides undue influence.
50 cent COULD have negotiated video rights, but more likely NO MAJOR studio would sign him if he insisted on it, so it is either play at local clubs your whole life, or sign the contract that is inherently one sided.
Great choice. So, now 50 does some "civil disobedience" by directly releasing the fruits of his labor, his sponsor's profits be damned. And somehow, you think this makes him an asshole...no, the real assholes are the execs who rely on their underlings to correct their bad decisions, and rake in the profits that this virtual monopoly creates.
That's the astroturf response??? "People are talking means that they made everything up?" If that was really the case, that the information in the article is 100% made up, then why are you bothering countering any of the arguments?
Sounds like it was accurate, and you are just trying to cast doubt.
Regarding Second - of course these are pennies, not dollars. The hot dog analogy was just an example; however, even when counting pennies, there are only pennies left in profits, and when there aren't enough pennies left over to fund the business after paying the vendors, whats the point of being in business?
Finally, your last point is the most obvious. I guess you figure if you use the word "clearly" that somehow makes something clear. If you are dealing with major labels, you have two choices - take the deal outlined here, or use the compulsary licensing the government put together on behalf of the labels.
Because, "clearly" the labels work as a cartel, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO BUSINESS, if you want to have songs that people want to buy.
Now, why don't you just sit back in your cube and have another cup of coffee - we really don't want to hear your BS.
That argument doesnt work in the real world...basically if someone prevents you from producing your product, the best thing to do is try to create a replacement product?
The problem here is not the innovation, is the bypass that our patent system makes on the market, by artifically clearing out competition.
Instead of competing for the best solutions, all one has to do now is to use the patent system to prevent any competitor from getting to the game in the first place, no matterif they have been around longer than you have - as long as you havethe lawyers on staff.
Because the way our legal system works, if you have the resources, you can delay and marginalize all defense until they run out of money.
I dont see how this can be defended, even by modern day conservatives- i thought the small business person was our lifeblood - then how do we have a system that allows multinational corps review and just take whatever innovation they find, knowing that they will always win.
of course, so do charities, right so we should allow warrantless wiretapping of charities, cause, you know - some of them siphon money to terrorists.
Hey, goes what? I heard that parents sometimes give birth to kids that grow up to be terrorists. So - having parents fuels terrorism. Lets go after all families, too.
If the investigation is drugs, they are using it for drugs, not terrorism. Because some drug dealers fund terrorists, does not mean DEA are focused on battling terrorists. They are looking for drug dealers, because that in itself is a crime.
Tying it to terrorism is just another way to weasel more rights away from you. Last I checked, drug dealers can be American citizens, and have access to the same constitutional rights as you do. I know this statement is way overused by people that don't know the difference...but this is ACTUALLY anti-constitutional. Have a right to due process. If the agency is using sneak-and-peak, that means they don't have any evidence, or enough evidence to call it probable cause...its a way to get evidence enough to obtain an actual, constitutional warrant.
When did i say i was ahead of the curve? I made no claim. What I know is that it is NOT new, just new marketing terms. I never said that there is no need for investment either. What I said is that this network is cheaper than the old ones, and we actively move ONTO the cheaper data network. Video over IP is by choice, because it is cheaper.
Yes, usage is going up, thanks for posting those stats. Cost is also going down, and will also do so expotentially, as new technologies are developed and implemented.
Dark fiber has nothing to do with this. Real, live telecom networks have been built to excess capacity, and continue to be be built ahead of the curve. Charging $10 to heavy users will not pay for capacity - thats just extra revenue. The price you pay today, already includes the cost to continue expansion.
Last mile is a bottleneck due to technology constraints, not network congestion. My piddly usage at 3mbps impacts nobody. 150gb is a drop ina very large bucket, and pretending that caps are intended to slow usage down, is what is ludicrous and untenable. It is simply to find additional revenue.
One more thing - if they are so scared, besides ADDING their OWN cloud services to their portfolios, they are also offering LIMITLESS use of their network, if you are using their services (PPV, VOD, etc). They get profit in it, all of a sudden there is plenty of bandwidth...again, they already have paid for and installed the equipment to support cloud/streaming services. They are not saying OMG amazon lets you stream oh craaaaaaap! They knew this was coming years ago. Why do you think Verizon FiOS can offer 100mb service? Do you think they didnt prepare for people to use it? Or ATT U-Verse being all IP will bust their network up?
Finally, when i signed up, yes, i did stream. This cloud stuff isnt new, just new to you.
You seem to think that there is some kind of giant netowkr congestion issue about to happen...boy they have you fooled.
I work in the industry. For a major telecom. In networking. Our engineers are more worried about IP address exhaustion, rather than bandwidth utilization. That battle was fought, and is paid for with your current rates. They already raised prices to pay for the extra fiber, routers, and general network buildout.
You seem to think that bandwidth is a limited resource, and using it somehow consumes something. Maybe, over time, the little electrical pulses can burn a router out, but as long as there is no congestion on the network, guess what - theres no limitation on the resource! Now, if you are someone experiencing slowdowns because others use up the limited amount of bandwidth that your ISP can offer at any given time, then I would fault the ISP for not building/buying enough infrastructure.
The big telecoms, the only ones who are looking at this, already have enough bandwidth in their networks to support as much bandwidth at the subscribers can use at the bandwith rates they pay for. These companies have already invested to move all TV, Phone, and Internet data onto their IP network, which is far cheaper to maintain and upgrade than the old switched and analog tv networks. Their prices are going down, per byte.
So we went over our AT&T caps (150) in June and July this year.
Now, when I signed up for the service, my contract did not include caps, so this is a significant change to the servie I signed up for.
This is what i use (3 megs DSL):
- 1-2 hours of Netflix streaming
- streaming xm radio daily (8 hours)
- 2 VPN running all day (8 hours)
- uploaded 30gb of music to Amazon Cloud
- downloaded maybe 30 songs for the kids new ipod
- used webex / logmein tools daily
- torrents, p2p, etc
- online gaming/steam etc
I'm on a closed WiFi network, and involved the telecom industry enough to be confident that there are no 3rd party users.
My fault, right? Shouldnt be watching Voyager using my dsl account? Using the Amazon cloud service?
Nobody wants to admit that right on time for cloud services, the telecoms are finding ways to increase profits.
Except for now you are hearing about 360 contracts, where the labels are owning performance, merchandising, the perfume, and your name. Think they would let that revenue source just stay with the artist, when they can own that too?
Keep hearing people talk about the advance as if this is the paycheck. The advance is usually used to record the album, hire lawyers, representation, touring, up front merchandise costs, and the rest is split between the band members. The advance is a LOAN, and all royalties are held until that is paid back- so while the record comapny is fronting the cost, they keep all revenue until the investment is 100% paid back. Those musicians dont get a salary, or any funds outside of that advance, unless they go find another source of income (touring, etc).
Yeah, easy to say. Its your own fault for signing, but usually its between signing the contract or getting a job at McDonalds. One party holds all of the power, the record company is usually not that desparate to sign, while this represents the artists future.
This is what theatres are doing to counteract the home theatre. Far too many theatres are doing exactly what you are saying- stacking people in the smallest screen possible (200 inch screens...really? And they wonder why people stay home?), and no focus on the experience.
Look at the austin drafthouse, or the arclight in hollywood, for theatres who are concerned about the overall experience. Arclight even charges a premium, but their theatre is full.
You are completely missing the point, and keep falling into the same trappings as the the chilling report - PROTECT IP is a badlaw, plain and simple. There are already laws in placeto protect IP theft, as we see in the courts today. Piracy isalready successfully being prosecuted.
When you have laws created and argued by people that have little understanding of technology, you end up with over reaching, bad laws.
Hyperlinking to sites that have links to infringing content is the same as someone publishing a book on how to break laws. We may not like it, but it is still freedom of speech.
The process of obtaining a warrant before going after a web site is a part of our republic's checks and balances - arguing against those checks is giving too much power to one part of the government - what's wrong with oversight? There is no urgency here.
Finally, you really have no Concept of the internet. Fuzzy dice? More like the road the car/content travels on. No internet in today's age= no distribution. Content that cant be transported is useless. And since when do these companies have a monopoly on content? Look at amazonkindle - one of the top sellers is a self-published author.