I suspect that the person who wrote the "discipline theater" article (as well as many of the posters in this discussion) must not have kids. As a big-time technophile I have absolutely no problem with MP3 players, cellphones, etc. However, as the parent of a 13 year-old I DO have a big problem with her bringing any of them to school.
Why? A few reasons:
1. They're a huge distraction...even if they're not being used. The kids spend enormous amounts of time discussing them, playing with them, showing them off, etc. Sure, they'd do this with just about anything, but a shiny new iPhone or iPad takes things to a whole new level.
2. They cause discipline problems. They get stolen. Kids fight over them. They're distracting when secretly used in class. Etc, etc, etc.
3. They're a constant headache for parents because they become yet another thing for kids to keep track of. I can't tell you how many times we've searched for phones, iPods, etc. because they've been misplaced/left at school/etc.
4. Kids break them! All the time. Maybe the wealthy amongst us see iPods as disposable, but for most of us $300 is not an insignificant amount of money.
Students need to study, not muck around with cellphones and MP3 players. They've got enough distractions as it is without these added attention-suckers. And as for the argument that these items are somehow "learning tools" that are going to help kids understand their world and technology better...comon'. By that argument, we're disadvantaging children by making them keep their DS's, PSP's, and other handheld games at home.
As far as I can tell schools pretty much suck when it comes to integrating technology into the curriculum. But specious arguments like this one aren't going to change the educational system.
OK. I guess I can't stop myself from commenting again because this subject really sticks in my craw.
Anyway...
The thing that I think is abso-freakin'-lutely hilarious is that the RIAA still wants to think that they're living in a world where they can control the means of distribution. Yeah, sure...back in the day when music was distributed on plastic discs (either black ones or smaller shiny ones), the recording industry had a business model: they controlled the means of distribution by controlling the sale of these hunks of plastic. What they fail to realize now is that they never were selling hunks of plastic...they were selling the information on those hunks of plastic. As soon as another system came along that freed the information on those plastic discs (the music) from the medium they were distributed on, all their power went away.
This whole debate is a ridiculous attempt at maintaining a system that doesn't-- and can't-- exist anymore. No matter what kind of DRM gets overlaid on their product, no matter how many laws they pay off congresscritters to pass, the fact of the matter is that information wants to be free. And before anyone blows a gasket over the phrase that John Perry Barlow coined so long ago, know this: I'm not naive enough to think that "free" is "free" as in "free beer." Nor is anyone who realizes the truth. When I (or others) say "free" we mean that it's impossible to control information by technological or statutory means. Yeah, you can keep a lid on it for a while, but as so many Bittorrent sites prove, that's just a temporary fix.
"But what about the artists?" It's a lament that we hear from so many in the industry. What about the artists? It's pretty clear from the references made in this article that the artists aren't the ones who are really losing the money. Even going with the somewhat-more-than-generous graph at the beginning of the article, the "artists" are grossing barely more than half of the money. I'm not really sure about the math in those graphs, but the top one asserts that they're making only 13 cents on every dollar. Either way it's a bad deal.
But wait. If we read the comments posted by those who seem unsympathetic to the "musicians are getting screwed" model, the musicians should shut their yaps because they're really making money not on the IP they're creating and selling but on the tangible products of their music. They're making money from the shows! They're making money from the merch! Shouldn't the bands just shut the hell up and stop whining?
Therein lies the problem with the whole argument being made by the recording industry.
Maybe the bands should stop whining. Maybe they should just be happy with 13% and make their money from stuff that can't be downloaded off the Internet. But if that's the case then the RIAA should quit the BS about how copying is "stealing from the artist." OK. Maybe it is...a little bit. But who it's really "stealing" from is the record label who takes the lion's share of the moo-lah.
Problem is, I bet that not too many of us are all that sympathetic to the A&R folks. It's one thing to feel badly because Tom Waits can't put food (or booze) on his table...it's another thing to feel badly that the record company who is backing him isn't going to be able to pay for the limos, executive suites, and bonuses that their leeches...errr...executives...aren't going to get if there's no money flowing into the system. Boo-freakin-hoo, right?
Whatever. Going down that path gets us off of the main topic. The fact of the matter -- and the thing the recording industry (and the entertainment industry in general) can't get over-- is this: there's no going back.
Yup. No going back. Once information went digital and we had an Interweb to connect people together and allow worldwide distribution of that information, the business model that relied on controlling the means of distribution was dead. Stone cold dead. And it ain't coming back. Really, think of it...can anyone imagine a reasonable scenario that would turn back the clock to where there wasn't an Internet and information couldn't be copied digitally?
I didn't think so.
So what do they do? Well, for starters it'd help if they'd try to imagine a different business model that doesn't involve controlling information that can't be controlled. HERESY! Yeah. I know. But it's reality, too. So what now?
If the industry finally comes to its senses it'll realize that if they want to make money they're going to have to concentrate on selling things that can't be duplicated in the digital realm. Stuff like merchandise. Stuff like live performances. Stuff like killer packaging and added-value goodies that accompany the information-container (read "CD" or "DVD") that they're selling. It's pretty obvious when you look at ticket sales at theaters for 3D movies and cinematic "experiences" that can't be replicated at home (no....3D TV's don't count. Your home ain't an IMAX theater no matter how much you spend) or live performances or even box sets that it's possible to make money on things other than the music. Ask all those bands so many of the comments reference that are making money off their shows, off licensing, or off of sponsorships.
Perhaps the new business model that record labels need to embrace is this: they become the "filters" that point us to new talent and then promote that talent (using their music) to make money on the tangible stuff. In some ways it means that labels need to stop worrying about making money off the intellectual property of the artists that they sell and start figuring out how to promote them so that they can make money off of the other stuff. Record labels should start thinking of themselves as promoters and ad agencies...not purveyors of plastic discs.
I'm usually pretty much in complete agreement with the stance that Techdirt takes on copyright, digital rights, etc., but I found it pretty ironic that Mike Masnick didn't check his sources very well. The Courtney Love article referenced near the beginning of this piece is a pretty blatant rip-off of the article Steve Albini (producer, "Big Black" singer, etc.) wrote back in the 90's in "Maximum Rock 'n' Roll" about where the money goes when a band gets a $250,000 advance. Courtney's article may be a bit more up-to-date, but it's just rehashing what Mr. Albini wrote about 20 years ago. If you doubt this, give it a read: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html .
I'm guessing that he ever made any money off this article (old school punks who remember Maximum R'n'R will agree, I'm sure) but it irks me that he's not getting the credit...especially when he's referenced in the article quoting Tim Quirk who states that he doesn't want to write a "Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults)."
It's one thing to rail against copyright and the bullmalarkey of the RIAA. It's another thing to not give credit where attribution is due. Maybe I'm just a middle-aged ex-punk with a chip on my shoulder, but I think that crediting the person who wrote the definitive (and original) study on "where they money goes in a recording contract advance" is the right thing to do.
Sorry, but I think you're really stretching here. I've been involved for over 15 years with higher ed (doing marketing for colleges, teaching, and serving in the upper levels of college administration) and think that the idea that StraighterLine's model poses a serious threat to traditional colleges in a bit naive.
1) The entertainment industry was about controlling the means of distribution. That's what got disrupted. The product (music, movies, etc.) is the same regardless of the means of distribution. That's why digitization is disruptive: it separates the product (music) from how it got distributed (shiny plastic discs). This is hardly the same thing.
2) The content of a college course is more than what's contained within the book(s) and lecture content of the course. Learning happens during the interactions between the professor, the students, and the other students. Heck, that $99/month would buy anyone any number of used textbooks that they could learn from. The problem is that they won't.
3) Similarly, the quality of the course is directly linked to the quality of the instructor. That's what sets one institution apart from another. They all have access to the same "content." Adjunct faculty get paid crap now (in my experience around $2,500-$3,500 per course). I can't imagine what kind of faculty a school's going to get with this pricing model.
4) Finally (and this is a more philosophical point, I guess), college isn't about learning "skills." That's what technical schools are supposed to be for. It's about learning to think. No matter what you learn in school (skills-wise), after 4 years it's going to be obsolete, especially in technical professions. The model described by StraighterLine might be fine for teaching Photoshop or AJAX coding, but I seriously doubt that it would work for philosophy, literary criticism, or writing.
Saying that a college class is just about its content is like saying that what a musician does is equivalent to the musical notes he or she plays. If that was the case we'd all be satisfied with free MIDI versions of songs. Obviously we're not. Or maybe you are. Find out here: http://www.mididb.com/ .
I was having trouble with my cable and Comcast said they'd "send a crew out." A bunch of dirtbags hauling a trenching machine showed up one morning just as I was leaving for work. I asked them what they were doing and they told me they were going to dig a trench for a new cable.
"Where are you going to put it?" I asked.
"Oh, we're gunna run it right up yer yard there," said one, pointing to the hill in front of my house.
"I've got an irrigation system in my lawn," I told them, not wanting to have the pipes chewed up.
"Hmmm...well we're sure as heck gonna chew 'em up when we put the cable in," the foreman cheerfully told me. "Just take it up with Comcast when we're gone and they'll reimburse you for the damage."
"F*ck no," I yelled. "Get the hell outta here. I'll fix it myself."
Which I did (it was a small break that I fixed with a quick splice), avoiding what would have surely been months of hassle with Comcast.
Unbelievable.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by seancarton.
Any of you have kids?
I suspect that the person who wrote the "discipline theater" article (as well as many of the posters in this discussion) must not have kids. As a big-time technophile I have absolutely no problem with MP3 players, cellphones, etc. However, as the parent of a 13 year-old I DO have a big problem with her bringing any of them to school.
Why? A few reasons:
1. They're a huge distraction...even if they're not being used. The kids spend enormous amounts of time discussing them, playing with them, showing them off, etc. Sure, they'd do this with just about anything, but a shiny new iPhone or iPad takes things to a whole new level.
2. They cause discipline problems. They get stolen. Kids fight over them. They're distracting when secretly used in class. Etc, etc, etc.
3. They're a constant headache for parents because they become yet another thing for kids to keep track of. I can't tell you how many times we've searched for phones, iPods, etc. because they've been misplaced/left at school/etc.
4. Kids break them! All the time. Maybe the wealthy amongst us see iPods as disposable, but for most of us $300 is not an insignificant amount of money.
Students need to study, not muck around with cellphones and MP3 players. They've got enough distractions as it is without these added attention-suckers. And as for the argument that these items are somehow "learning tools" that are going to help kids understand their world and technology better...comon'. By that argument, we're disadvantaging children by making them keep their DS's, PSP's, and other handheld games at home.
As far as I can tell schools pretty much suck when it comes to integrating technology into the curriculum. But specious arguments like this one aren't going to change the educational system.
New Business Model?
OK. I guess I can't stop myself from commenting again because this subject really sticks in my craw.
Anyway...
The thing that I think is abso-freakin'-lutely hilarious is that the RIAA still wants to think that they're living in a world where they can control the means of distribution. Yeah, sure...back in the day when music was distributed on plastic discs (either black ones or smaller shiny ones), the recording industry had a business model: they controlled the means of distribution by controlling the sale of these hunks of plastic. What they fail to realize now is that they never were selling hunks of plastic...they were selling the information on those hunks of plastic. As soon as another system came along that freed the information on those plastic discs (the music) from the medium they were distributed on, all their power went away.
This whole debate is a ridiculous attempt at maintaining a system that doesn't-- and can't-- exist anymore. No matter what kind of DRM gets overlaid on their product, no matter how many laws they pay off congresscritters to pass, the fact of the matter is that information wants to be free. And before anyone blows a gasket over the phrase that John Perry Barlow coined so long ago, know this: I'm not naive enough to think that "free" is "free" as in "free beer." Nor is anyone who realizes the truth. When I (or others) say "free" we mean that it's impossible to control information by technological or statutory means. Yeah, you can keep a lid on it for a while, but as so many Bittorrent sites prove, that's just a temporary fix.
"But what about the artists?" It's a lament that we hear from so many in the industry. What about the artists? It's pretty clear from the references made in this article that the artists aren't the ones who are really losing the money. Even going with the somewhat-more-than-generous graph at the beginning of the article, the "artists" are grossing barely more than half of the money. I'm not really sure about the math in those graphs, but the top one asserts that they're making only 13 cents on every dollar. Either way it's a bad deal.
But wait. If we read the comments posted by those who seem unsympathetic to the "musicians are getting screwed" model, the musicians should shut their yaps because they're really making money not on the IP they're creating and selling but on the tangible products of their music. They're making money from the shows! They're making money from the merch! Shouldn't the bands just shut the hell up and stop whining?
Therein lies the problem with the whole argument being made by the recording industry.
Maybe the bands should stop whining. Maybe they should just be happy with 13% and make their money from stuff that can't be downloaded off the Internet. But if that's the case then the RIAA should quit the BS about how copying is "stealing from the artist." OK. Maybe it is...a little bit. But who it's really "stealing" from is the record label who takes the lion's share of the moo-lah.
Problem is, I bet that not too many of us are all that sympathetic to the A&R folks. It's one thing to feel badly because Tom Waits can't put food (or booze) on his table...it's another thing to feel badly that the record company who is backing him isn't going to be able to pay for the limos, executive suites, and bonuses that their leeches...errr...executives...aren't going to get if there's no money flowing into the system. Boo-freakin-hoo, right?
Whatever. Going down that path gets us off of the main topic. The fact of the matter -- and the thing the recording industry (and the entertainment industry in general) can't get over-- is this: there's no going back.
Yup. No going back. Once information went digital and we had an Interweb to connect people together and allow worldwide distribution of that information, the business model that relied on controlling the means of distribution was dead. Stone cold dead. And it ain't coming back. Really, think of it...can anyone imagine a reasonable scenario that would turn back the clock to where there wasn't an Internet and information couldn't be copied digitally?
I didn't think so.
So what do they do? Well, for starters it'd help if they'd try to imagine a different business model that doesn't involve controlling information that can't be controlled. HERESY! Yeah. I know. But it's reality, too. So what now?
If the industry finally comes to its senses it'll realize that if they want to make money they're going to have to concentrate on selling things that can't be duplicated in the digital realm. Stuff like merchandise. Stuff like live performances. Stuff like killer packaging and added-value goodies that accompany the information-container (read "CD" or "DVD") that they're selling. It's pretty obvious when you look at ticket sales at theaters for 3D movies and cinematic "experiences" that can't be replicated at home (no....3D TV's don't count. Your home ain't an IMAX theater no matter how much you spend) or live performances or even box sets that it's possible to make money on things other than the music. Ask all those bands so many of the comments reference that are making money off their shows, off licensing, or off of sponsorships.
Perhaps the new business model that record labels need to embrace is this: they become the "filters" that point us to new talent and then promote that talent (using their music) to make money on the tangible stuff. In some ways it means that labels need to stop worrying about making money off the intellectual property of the artists that they sell and start figuring out how to promote them so that they can make money off of the other stuff. Record labels should start thinking of themselves as promoters and ad agencies...not purveyors of plastic discs.
Steve Albini Said It First: Don't Credit Courtney Love
I'm usually pretty much in complete agreement with the stance that Techdirt takes on copyright, digital rights, etc., but I found it pretty ironic that Mike Masnick didn't check his sources very well. The Courtney Love article referenced near the beginning of this piece is a pretty blatant rip-off of the article Steve Albini (producer, "Big Black" singer, etc.) wrote back in the 90's in "Maximum Rock 'n' Roll" about where the money goes when a band gets a $250,000 advance. Courtney's article may be a bit more up-to-date, but it's just rehashing what Mr. Albini wrote about 20 years ago. If you doubt this, give it a read: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html .
I'm guessing that he ever made any money off this article (old school punks who remember Maximum R'n'R will agree, I'm sure) but it irks me that he's not getting the credit...especially when he's referenced in the article quoting Tim Quirk who states that he doesn't want to write a "Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults)."
It's one thing to rail against copyright and the bullmalarkey of the RIAA. It's another thing to not give credit where attribution is due. Maybe I'm just a middle-aged ex-punk with a chip on my shoulder, but I think that crediting the person who wrote the definitive (and original) study on "where they money goes in a recording contract advance" is the right thing to do.
Thanks! Keep up the good work.
Oh good grief! Four reasons why this model isn't disruptive...
Sorry, but I think you're really stretching here. I've been involved for over 15 years with higher ed (doing marketing for colleges, teaching, and serving in the upper levels of college administration) and think that the idea that StraighterLine's model poses a serious threat to traditional colleges in a bit naive.
1) The entertainment industry was about controlling the means of distribution. That's what got disrupted. The product (music, movies, etc.) is the same regardless of the means of distribution. That's why digitization is disruptive: it separates the product (music) from how it got distributed (shiny plastic discs). This is hardly the same thing.
2) The content of a college course is more than what's contained within the book(s) and lecture content of the course. Learning happens during the interactions between the professor, the students, and the other students. Heck, that $99/month would buy anyone any number of used textbooks that they could learn from. The problem is that they won't.
3) Similarly, the quality of the course is directly linked to the quality of the instructor. That's what sets one institution apart from another. They all have access to the same "content." Adjunct faculty get paid crap now (in my experience around $2,500-$3,500 per course). I can't imagine what kind of faculty a school's going to get with this pricing model.
4) Finally (and this is a more philosophical point, I guess), college isn't about learning "skills." That's what technical schools are supposed to be for. It's about learning to think. No matter what you learn in school (skills-wise), after 4 years it's going to be obsolete, especially in technical professions. The model described by StraighterLine might be fine for teaching Photoshop or AJAX coding, but I seriously doubt that it would work for philosophy, literary criticism, or writing.
Saying that a college class is just about its content is like saying that what a musician does is equivalent to the musical notes he or she plays. If that was the case we'd all be satisfied with free MIDI versions of songs. Obviously we're not. Or maybe you are. Find out here: http://www.mididb.com/ .
Bastard Comcast Contractors
I had a similar thing happen to me.
I was having trouble with my cable and Comcast said they'd "send a crew out." A bunch of dirtbags hauling a trenching machine showed up one morning just as I was leaving for work. I asked them what they were doing and they told me they were going to dig a trench for a new cable.
"Where are you going to put it?" I asked.
"Oh, we're gunna run it right up yer yard there," said one, pointing to the hill in front of my house.
"I've got an irrigation system in my lawn," I told them, not wanting to have the pipes chewed up.
"Hmmm...well we're sure as heck gonna chew 'em up when we put the cable in," the foreman cheerfully told me. "Just take it up with Comcast when we're gone and they'll reimburse you for the damage."
"F*ck no," I yelled. "Get the hell outta here. I'll fix it myself."
Which I did (it was a small break that I fixed with a quick splice), avoiding what would have surely been months of hassle with Comcast.
Unbelievable.