This is a very reasonable point you make. If you read the article I linked, there is a graph specifically detailing digital single sales revenue which doesn't really factor until 2003 when the decline was already in effect for about four years. In reality it's probably partly the availability of songs a-la-carte and partly piracy. The financial reversal, whatever the cause may be, is striking. [q.v. Michael DeGusta's adjusted graph]
It may well be overblown. I believe the industry will recover. Legal alternatives to piracy like iTunes look extremely promising. Still, I find the lets-do-away-with-copyright rhetoric pretty simplistic and those who espouse it seem to have no inkling of music industry economics (at least historically speaking). I find the self-styled copyright revolutionaries who feel entitled to free content to be especially grating. And, like everyone else, I find the suits and fat cats at RIAA and MPAA to be delusional, short-sighted, and in many cases downright evil (David Geffen is a good example).
You'll have just as much trouble selling them for profit as the legal copyright holder is having.
And yet people still do this and still make money at it. I find it curious that you neglected to comment on what I consider a totally unethical act. Suppose it's not the Beatles but a brand new artist? I.e., someone who hasn't made it yet? And further suppose that it's someone famous stealing an idea from an unknown artist? I hope that you can appreciate the completely unbalanced power dynamic in that situation. Copyright as also about the little guys. How would you like someone taking credit (and profiting) from your ideas when you make nothing?
The price point is still too high
What price point do you refer to? Is $.01 USD too high to own a song? Must all songs be free? If everyone who acquired a song paid one penny, one would only need to sell one million copies to fund a world-class recording (with no profit, however). This assumes a world-class recording costs $10,000 which is actually fairly low assumption. World-class studios cost a few thousand dollars per day. You might have a band of 3-5 guys plus recording engineers, mastering engineers, etc. working for a few days to get it right. I'm fully aware that this level of cost might no longer be a sustainable business model, but offer these figures here so that you have a better idea of the cost involved to make a recording. If you reduce the cost by 90%, you are still talking about $1,000 to record the song (and quality will suffer accordingly) and you'd need to sell 100,000 copies at $.01 to just break even. If a song costs a dime (a fucking DIME for fuck's sake) then things start to get more reasonable. The problem is that nobody supports microtransactions this small. I believe the minimum fee for a credit card transaction from the payment gateway is about a quarter. How about a dime for a song? A quarter? You can pass it on to your kids. Share it with your buddies.
The copyright holders can cut 90% of their costs by stopping the insane marketing they currently use.
Upon what is that based, Mr. content industry analyst? Picture the previous scenario where a small-time band trouble themselves to record a song for $1,000. How does anyone know that they have done so [tree/forest]? Marketing! We have to tell people. For small bands, you might buy an ad in your local (dead tree) zine. Or perhaps buy an ad on facebook? You'll definitely spam your Facebook wall with the fact you have new songs. I *seriously* doubt we'll be able come up with $9,000 for marketing when we could only afford $1,000 for the song itself. In the case of big-time bands (and Justin Beibers) you may be correct -- the marketing budgets are enormous. The perverse thing about this is that marketing on that scale actually generates demand that otherwise would not exist. I hate this as much as anyone, but marketing brainwashes sheep (tweeners and parents and all sorts of losers) into actually *buying* something. I don't think this new paradigm really jeopardizes big ugly cheesdicks like Beibers and GaGas.
I think my point here (one I can't really prove) is that countercultural music will suffer in this content-is-free environment.
Short answer, You'll be hard pressed to make money selling content.
At first, this seemed ludicrous to me. Having had some exposure to MBA types, I'm casually acquainted with the concept of commodification and have always been told that content is the one thing that really resists commodification. Money is in content they said. And markets tended to bear that out -- margins have historically been lower for hardware manufacturers and commodities producers. And yet I started thinking about it and digitally encoded content is utterly commodified if there is no restriction on its distribution. This is a compelling notion. There may be only one Mick Jagger, but we can make exact error-free copies of
There is no reasonable way to control or regulate copying.
Sadly, I agree with you here. Not even the notion that such copying is unethical* or that one is not helping to patronize one's favorite artists seems dampen everyone's enthusiasm for acquiring music without paying for it. We all do love free stuff, don't we?
For you to assert that an attempt at DRM is not a natural response is a bit disingenuous, I think. It's an obvious reaction a manager of a content company would have to the idea of piracy: "can we stop it somehow?" A natural response from a developer (whose job might be in jeopardy) would certainly be, "well we can sure try!" I have no intention of defending any particular DRM scheme. I still assert that to attempt some kind of DRM was an obvious choice and would also point out (as mentioned elsewhere) that many games have adopted some social aspect today which obviates the old sell-by-the-copy profit model. Hate this must-be-connected aspect of games all you like. It's both a natural evolution of DRM and also an obvious example of how an industry under pressure twists and writhes in order to preserve profit streams under downsizing pressure. The presence of DRM (and all its negative aspects) is a symptom of content industries stung by a new reality: Digital content can be infinitely distributed and easily copied world wide and no one is forced to buy it any more. I wouldn't presume to prescribe whether you should or should not accept it. I would hope that you perceive it as somewhat inevitable -- sort of like the way people can be expected to panic when leaving a building on fire.
And yes I find the whole Bluray concept kind of sad and also kind of despicable -- certainly the ads and the fact that there seem to be PAL and NTSC variants and never the twain shall meet. Douchebaggery, for sure. I believe you are correct in your assessment that the business model is broken and tracking individual copies is a lost cause, but I wonder more than a bit at how you glibly dismiss the halving of a 10B industry with a wave of your hand. I imagine you'd feel pretty different if it was your industry. On the other hand, I'm always ranting about how download is the way and these physical media things are so stupid, so I can feel you a bit here.
As for letting Pirate Bay and Youtube copy content rampantly without remuneration for the artists, I strongly disagree. If anybody should be ponying up for this content it is a profitable commercial entity whose popularity rests so heavily on the ostensible value of this content. If Joe Citizen wants to give a copy to his/her BFF and significant other and book club and whoever else or wants to pass it on to generations of offspring or whatever then fine. For Kim DotCom to drive 10 Ferraris he bought selling ads on top of other people's hard work? Is that OK? I don't think it is.
And yes I agree that people will still write books and make music and write video games no matter what. We've all got our hobbies.
As for new business models. Hm. Advertising? Endorsements? I can't wait to hear new songs come out with product placements in them. Imagine V-I-A-G-R-A sung to the tune of Gloria. Or albums interspersed with advertisements. I can't stomach Spotify. I also wonder if perhaps you have too narrow a conception of copyright in dismissing it so completely. Part of the notion of copyright is that an artist has control over their work. Imagine Stairway To Heaven released by Led Zeppelin on Monday 8 Nov, 1971 and then released again by the Monkees Friday Nov 12? Or suppose Radiohead doesn't want OK Computer used to peddle Lenovo Computers? As you can imagine, it could be a very different world if commercial entities are allowed to copy/broadcast/appropriate copyrighted material without any regard to the rights of the creators.
As for patronage, I like that idea! How about the people who consume content actually send some money to the people who make it? Wouldn't that be a
Are you even bothering to read my comments? Piracy is related to loss of potential profit. I've said this multiple times.
Compare this quote of yours to the other one that I quoted you on:
Irrelevant. The risks the businesses take don't have anything to do with the pirates. That's something the businesses decide on their own.
Would you agree that "loss of potential profit" is a risk?
I suggest reading my comments again, because nowhere did I say that pirates weren't to blame at all, and nowhere did I say that all DRM is harmful (In fact, in the post you replied to, I merely said it was harmful in most cases!).
Admittedly you did not use the exact phrase in all cases in the thread that I read, but you also didn't limit your description of DRM to only some cases either as you can see here:
But of course, there is no excuse for DRM and draconian measures. Punishing innocents for the actions of others is simply unjustifiable to me.
How am I supposed to interpret the phrase 'there is no excuse for DRM' other than to assume that you think all DRM is bad.?
Am I misinterpreting something, or are you consistently trying to label me as a pirate despite the fact that I've denied this multiple times? But no, you can't really measure the effects. I don't think I'll ever be able to see how it's a "huge" problem since it's all just potential profit and potential entertainment that's at stake.
I apologize for equating you to a pirate. I suppose I do suspect you of consuming entertainment you don't pay for -- if only because of what you've written. I hope that you can overlook my suspicions and read my words as though intended at an ostensible pirate. I used Napster and Kazaa a bit years ago but have sworn all that stuff off. I have no evidence that illegal copying decimated the music industry single-handedly, but I do believe that it is a major contributor. I also believe a similar shakedown in the movie industry is imminent unless the suits can get their act together and build affordable, legal alternatives.
Which doesn't even exist yet. Look, no matter how many potential losses you can think up, it's not going to change my opinion that people are exaggerating the effects of copyright infringement.
Arrogance? Was what I said somehow false? Are the developers/companies not in any way related to the implementation of DRM?
Your arrogance persists! My post should clearly indicate that I'm aware of developers' role in creating DRM and furthermore points out precisely where I thought you were wrong. Perhaps you should read it again. I'm not trying to insist that DRM is a good thing, but you still blame developers alone for DRM and insist that it's both draconian and punitive in every case. That DRM would be attempted to combat unauthorized copying seems self-evident. It's an obvious response to an unethical behavior by some users. Yes it sucks most of the time and it fails utterly in preventing piracy, but it would be entirely unnecessary if everyone honored the terms of a digital content contract. People don't. So here we are. My point is that it's a two-way street. I'm fully aware that DRM is not necessary for a successful business model but to blame only the company for it is to ignore the elephant in the room: people who ignore the purchase contract (a binding legal document!) and make unathorized copies of games, music, movies, etc. If you don't like the contract, that doesn't mean you are still entitled to the product. I realize that it's futile to enforce this contract in the real world, but in terms of ethics, I believe I'm on fairly solid footing when I say that if you don't like the contract, you shouldn't buy the product. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you do not have an inalienable right to watch Game of Thrones without paying for it.
And, if you are continuing to try and make the point that it's a "miniscule" problem then perhaps you should opt to not consume content that has DRM or content that you do not pay for. That should be a miniscule sacrifice for you. At the same time, I hope that you can appreciate that one doesn't just wake up one day and magically know how to play violin or edit film or be a mastering engineer. For people who have chosen that lifestyle, the collapse of an industry is a serious proposition and has serious ramifications in the real world.
Irrelevant. The risks the businesses take don't have anything to do with the pirates. That's something the businesses decide on their own.
How in your mind do you magically divorce the effect of pirates on the desire of investors to invest in content industries? Are you suggesting that unauthorized copying doesn't affect movie revnues? Or perhaps that people will still invest in something even if it's going to fail?
And? I'll need to see conclusive evidence that it's because of music copying, for one.
Obviously, there is no way anyone could provide conclusive evidence of cause and effect. I suspect it's partly greater efficiency which has reduced revenue numbers (no to press and ship CDs, maintain store real estate, payola for radio douchebags, etc.) and partly a move from album-based sales to single sales, but it is certainly sobering to see an industry gutted this way.
But, even then, I still cannot see how music copying is anything more than a minuscule problem. This is mere entertainment, the effects of an individual copying music are completely uncertain and immeasurable, and the only thing that can be lost is potential profit.
Here is where the arrogance rankles me. When you suck $10B annually out of an industry, that means approximately 250,000 households lose their source of income. Sure they can do other stuff I guess, but the problem isn't what I would call 'miniscule'. It may be "mere" entertainment to you and you may try to rationalize your transgression, but millions of tiny transgressions do add up to a measurable effect.
And, please, stop beating that drum that the only thing lost is potential profit. What's potentially lost is entertainment itself. If no one pays for it, it doesn't get made. If fewer people pay for it, less of it gets made. If you
Copyright wasn't created to sustain the creation of art. It wasn't (and still isn't) about making sure the artist gets rewarded for the effort. It was, and still is, about rewarding those entrepreneurs who are willing to take the risk of copying those works and distributing the copies. Creating art was never the expensive part. Making copies so that society could enjoy the art was.
Um, perhaps you have a source for this? Having recorded professionally, I know that in most cases the recordings (not to mention food, clothing, shelter, and transport for my band) were at least an order of magnitude higher than the first pressing of CDs. But that's just my personal experience.
Copyright is an anachronism.
Awesome! My new band is called the Beatles and I am going to start hiring Chinese musicians to record all of their material....oh fuck that. I'll just print a bunch of their CDs from the masters I have and start selling those!
This is an attitude that puzzles me. The game companies are the ones making these decisions. If anything, the blame mostly lies on them. They're the ones who implement the DRM and make the software, not the pirates. The pirates may indirectly cause them to change direction, but they still make the final decision.
Do not pretend as if no blame rests on the developers.
I suggest you consider dropping a bit of your own arrogance. Obviously a developer will always want to earn more and a customer will always want to pay less. DRM, as irritating as it is sometimes, can be born of an honest motivation: to limit game use to the person who purchased it. To say there is no excuse for the 'punishment' of 'draconian' DRM is a pretty nice bit of rhetoric but ignores entirely the fact that some DRM goes unnoticed by most (e.g., streaming a movie from netflix) and that unauthorized copying and distribution of games has a critical relation to the profitability of game development and this, in turn, has a critical relation to the desire of developers to make games. You may love your single-player, non-networked games a great deal, but if the prevailing business climate makes these games unattractive projects for developers, you won't have much to choose from.
As for your other post, I think you get a few things wrong:
I cannot fathom how anyone could perceive that as being a much more severe problem than jaywalking. They may or may not be losing potential profit, but that is all.
You don't seem to realize that game development, music, tv, and movies are considered high-risk/high reward investements. In some cases, it's not "potential profit" that is at stake but the very business itself. For every blockbuster game/movie/song/show out there, hundreds go belly up.
I cannot see how copying music is a "huge" problem even as someone who supports copyright.
I have pretty liberal attitudes toward music copying, but believe it's pretty telling that music industry revenues peaked in 1999 and plummeted for years. In fact, music industry revenues are down over 60% from where they were 13 years ago. In any other industry a 65% decline would be seen as a complete catastrophe. Maybe that's not a huge problem for you, but it certainly is for people who worked in the music industry.
Laughable. What do you suggest? Even as someone who supports the idea of reasonable copyright laws, I do not believe it is possible to stop.
Actually, it was legislation (the DMCA) that set the stage for the current legal situation vis-a-vis content sharing. In particular, the safe habor provision of that legislation is what protects companies like Google and the Pirate Bay and Megaupload from enormous civil actions by the MPAA and the RIAA -- that is why they have resorted to suing individuals instead. The DMCA says that these internet companies are not liable for the actions of their users and that has resulted in the proliferation of services that people can use to share copyrighted material freely. A reversal of this provision would immediately result in some colossal lawsuits.
I heartily agree with you that a legal alternative to downloading is the only way forward here. The suits in the motion picture business are screwing this upbig time.
While I approve of the cynicism of your post, I think you need to examine your own circular reasoning. You are no different than a critic in boldly claiming that "anyone can make [art], and great artists aren't in short supply." The primary difference between you and an art critic would be that a reputable art critic at least makes an appeal to a history of art criticism. I disagree that great artists are abundant. On the contrary: most art is piss poor and finding good art is thrilling precisely because of how rare it is. I would no more trust you as an art critic than I would someone who draws a Dolan comic every now and then to decorate my house or create the titles for my hundred million dollar movie. I tend to trust professional critics like Roger Ebert or Peter Travers, not because they are on TV or write for Rolling Stone or because Roger Ebert wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, but because they do actually manage to say interesting things (q.v. Ebert's feud with Vincent Gallo). Art critics are under the same pressure as artists to gain notoriety and public trust and perform their work with wit and skill. We need these pompous art critics to tear down pompous (and ungodly rich) assholes like George Lucas who think they shit gold and clot our media pipeline with Jar Jar Binks. And here I am playing critic to the critic of art critics. Art itself is a circular business and, try how it may, never quite manages to escape its own circularity and nonlinear nature.
As for Stirling's soundbite:
Artists, in general, must either work for nothing, or sign away their rights as part of getting distribution.
This does not seem true to me. I'm not sure where to start. On the one hand, there are too many counterexamples of fabulously wealthy artists to say that one must sign away one's rights. On the other hand, ever heard of youtube or the pirate bay? Distribution today is free* if you don't mind giving all of your rights away. But then the question arises: have you really given your "rights" away? If so, to whom?
If you really want to cut out the middle man, pay some script kiddie to set up a website for you or build it yourself. This need not be an expensive investment. You could start with OSCommerce (which is FOSS and has modules for digital content sales). Other questions arise in this case: * How much to charge? $10 $1? voluntary donations? free? * What are the terms? Can downloaders burn my stuff onto CD/DVD/Bluray and sell it themselves? Can they give it to friends? Obviously, one has no real control here and one must rely on the honor system for any contract adherence.
The trick is apparently to monetize it yourself directly or indirectly (merch, ads, etc.) OR team up with trustworthy individuals who know what they are doing to monetize it for you. If you get screwed, you are partly to blame. My ex-girlfriend used to work for Interscope and related to me a few details regarding Trent Reznor's firing of his manager, the acrimonious aftermath, and then the fact that he released a record for free -- or whatever one was willing to contribute voluntarily -- and made more money than he'd ever made on a label. It's a curious example of old-paradigm-meets-new-paradigm inasmuch as the old machinery built NIN as a commercial entity.
Consider the two extreme alternatives: 1) Sign on with an organized, predatorial team of specialized experts who have managed to monetize a turd like Justin Beiber or the Black Eyed Peas 2) Give your shit away and hope for the best.
Seems to me there's a sweet spot in between somewhere, but who wouldn't want a few organized promoters, marketers, artists, managers, lawyers, and roadies on one's team? What's so puzzling is how both extremes in the whole pirates-vs-mafiaa war seem to be shooting themselves in the foot. MAFIAA sues its customers. Pirates sell ads while giving away the music created by the hard work of their heroes. WTF?
Admittedly, this may be the result of my Western upbringing, but I think it might be accurate to portray the greatest living mathematicians as white -- with possibly an Indian or Asian or two. For the past few hundred years, most of the greatest mathematicians have been skinny white guys*. If you go back to the foundations of algebra, you do find some Persians (arguably "white") and some Indian guys. Given that the movie appears to be a US-centric one, it would have been pretty easy to throw in an Asian/Indian dude. Against my better judgment, I will go out on a limb and say that the African-American and Latino communities in the United States have not exactly produced a lot of notable mathematicians.
But I would agree that this looks like pretty lousy casting. Partly because most "white" guys in the US have shown declining math scores and partly because those dudes aren't nearly homely enough. Almost without exception, all the seriously capable math nerds I know have bad complexions, bad beards, and thick glasses. The trailer should also feature a scene where each of the smart guys is living at home with their mother.
Yes, and your salary needs to be increased. Oh, and your wife should treat you better.
So true! Finally someone understands me.
But seriously, to spend roughly 2 hours a day, 5 days a week *commuting*? That's time you don't get paid and time you don't spend with your loved ones and time you don't spend fapping or playing xbox or whatever. Ugh. All ecological considerations aside, that sounds sucky. Not sure what Lumpy does with the rest of his life, but he spends at least 5% of it driving a car to and from work.
Had you RTFA, you would see that these batteries have a storage density 15 times greater than current batteries. That would mean a 400lb battery weighs could be reduced to less than 30 lbs. Also, note the discussions here about multiple batteries. It doesn't have to be one giant battery and in fact probably shouldn't be for various practical reasons.
You glossed over the part where they describe *interchangeable batteries*. Once battery sizes and connections are standardized, everyone will have the same batteries. You can take the dead batteries out of your car and replace them with charged ones from the store at the charging station. This could easily be faster (and safer) than pumping gas.
Fuck you. No, really, I mean it, go fuck yourself. You have no idea at all to what extent my lifestyle is sustainable or not, what effects positive or negative it has on the environment.
I think this is in fact an ideological development as much as a commercial development. For this launch, SpaceX can claim the glory or the blame depending on the success / failure of the mission. NASA, for its part seems perfectly willing to share all their expertise in exchange for a guaranteed rate for space launches -- an accountability that their traditional funding patterns seem to lack entirely. And, if the mission fails, NASA can always blame SpaceX and keep themselves nice and squeaky clean.
Personally, I believe this opens the door to competition in orbital service provisioning and that's the real story. It's a bit like Apple delegating construction of all their iDevices to Foxconn instead of building a factory of their own.
Well let's hope they aren't knocking off the space shuttle -- you might recall that 33.3% of them exploded catastrophically, killing all their crew members.
Mod parent up. I found it really striking that SpaceX posts prices on their website. It remains to be seen how this plays out, but they are talking some serious shit over there at SpaceX. I'd love to see them back it up.
As for the need for a thousand dollar hammer, I call shenanigans. That hand tools in space link doesn't prove anything except carelessness.
You forgot Blue Origin (run by Amazon's Jeff Bezos) and the quaintly named but feisty Armadillo Aerospace. Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman -- I believe those companies have been contracting to NASA and the defense department for years but prefer to suck the government's massive teats by going through NASA, the DOD, and all those other agencies. In fact, Northrop more or less purchased Scaled Composites.
These new companies are fresh faces on the scene that has been dominated by aerospace heavy weights for years. I have great admiration for Elon Musk. That guy rules.
Yes but they have to prove they showed you something you didn't know in the first place. And, in my opinion, if you steal their idea, you deserve to get sued. The whole point is to avoid NDAs offered up by chumps. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Try and stick with the smart folks and you will make more money.
I agree that it's a good move. The stock market also seems to approve as IBM's stock is up about 240% since the sale of their PC business in 2004. Building hardware is a low-skill business relative to *designing* hardware -- or software. IBM doesn't make a lot of money off an assembly line worker building commodity hardware for low-tech applications. They do make a fortune marking up a highly educated, highly skilled knowledge worker designing novel network or supercomputer topologies built on commodity hardware.
NDA is really no big deal. Anything you bring to the table is still yours. It's also a very good way to get acquainted with potent ideas. When someone lacks an NDA, on the other hand, I tend to think they are not very serious.
I don't think you know much at all about how I think as you are too busy name-calling to consider my view point or perhaps address some of the non-AGW aspects of rampant petroleum consumption that I've mentioned. It seems pretty obvious to me that you *believe* that climate science is a sham and then you run around pretending to offer pseudo-scientific opinions about it based on nothing at all. You make assertions about temperatures being normal without any real scientific justifications at all and then snarl and call people names if they disagree with you and then you accuse them of being unscientific. Personally, I'm undecided about AGW. There do appear to be vested interests on both sides of the argument -- not just the unctuous researchers trying to suck the government teat that you constantly call out but also their unscrupulous counterparts that suck the Exxon or Koch family teats that you never bother to mention. You moan about confused energy policy and then neglect to mention subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry. You deny that you typically vote Republican and that you think Obama is a socialist and yet you espouse libertarianism and almost in the same breath you call Obama a fascist "which is a form of socialist." In one minute you are slamming Obama for being a facist and then talking about how the Chinese (hello, COMMUNISTS) have taken over the world's manufacturing duties. You wave your hand and blame regulation as though you were some kind of fucking expert. I don't buy it.
I'm willing to take you at your word that I was wrong in my predictions about you, but I still get the impression -- a subjective one -- that you are not the enlightened libertarian you pretend to be but rather a lazy and paranoid member of the petty bourgeoisie blindly defending the status quo because you are afraid of any kind of change. If you are going to run around pretending to really know the truth without any credentials of any kind or even any good status and research (or even good links for that matter) then someone is going to troll you. And if you don't provide facts, the troll doesn't have to either. I doubt you'll take my advice, but I would recommend more facts and less vitriol.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very reasonable point you make. If you read the article I linked, there is a graph specifically detailing digital single sales revenue which doesn't really factor until 2003 when the decline was already in effect for about four years. In reality it's probably partly the availability of songs a-la-carte and partly piracy. The financial reversal, whatever the cause may be, is striking. [q.v. Michael DeGusta's adjusted graph]
It may well be overblown. I believe the industry will recover. Legal alternatives to piracy like iTunes look extremely promising. Still, I find the lets-do-away-with-copyright rhetoric pretty simplistic and those who espouse it seem to have no inkling of music industry economics (at least historically speaking). I find the self-styled copyright revolutionaries who feel entitled to free content to be especially grating. And, like everyone else, I find the suits and fat cats at RIAA and MPAA to be delusional, short-sighted, and in many cases downright evil (David Geffen is a good example).
You'll have just as much trouble selling them for profit as the legal copyright holder is having.
And yet people still do this and still make money at it. I find it curious that you neglected to comment on what I consider a totally unethical act. Suppose it's not the Beatles but a brand new artist? I.e., someone who hasn't made it yet? And further suppose that it's someone famous stealing an idea from an unknown artist? I hope that you can appreciate the completely unbalanced power dynamic in that situation. Copyright as also about the little guys. How would you like someone taking credit (and profiting) from your ideas when you make nothing?
The price point is still too high
What price point do you refer to? Is $.01 USD too high to own a song? Must all songs be free? If everyone who acquired a song paid one penny, one would only need to sell one million copies to fund a world-class recording (with no profit, however). This assumes a world-class recording costs $10,000 which is actually fairly low assumption. World-class studios cost a few thousand dollars per day. You might have a band of 3-5 guys plus recording engineers, mastering engineers, etc. working for a few days to get it right. I'm fully aware that this level of cost might no longer be a sustainable business model, but offer these figures here so that you have a better idea of the cost involved to make a recording. If you reduce the cost by 90%, you are still talking about $1,000 to record the song (and quality will suffer accordingly) and you'd need to sell 100,000 copies at $.01 to just break even. If a song costs a dime (a fucking DIME for fuck's sake) then things start to get more reasonable. The problem is that nobody supports microtransactions this small. I believe the minimum fee for a credit card transaction from the payment gateway is about a quarter. How about a dime for a song? A quarter? You can pass it on to your kids. Share it with your buddies.
The copyright holders can cut 90% of their costs by stopping the insane marketing they currently use.
Upon what is that based, Mr. content industry analyst? Picture the previous scenario where a small-time band trouble themselves to record a song for $1,000. How does anyone know that they have done so [tree/forest]? Marketing! We have to tell people. For small bands, you might buy an ad in your local (dead tree) zine. Or perhaps buy an ad on facebook? You'll definitely spam your Facebook wall with the fact you have new songs. I *seriously* doubt we'll be able come up with $9,000 for marketing when we could only afford $1,000 for the song itself. In the case of big-time bands (and Justin Beibers) you may be correct -- the marketing budgets are enormous. The perverse thing about this is that marketing on that scale actually generates demand that otherwise would not exist. I hate this as much as anyone, but marketing brainwashes sheep (tweeners and parents and all sorts of losers) into actually *buying* something. I don't think this new paradigm really jeopardizes big ugly cheesdicks like Beibers and GaGas.
I think my point here (one I can't really prove) is that countercultural music will suffer in this content-is-free environment.
Short answer, You'll be hard pressed to make money selling content.
At first, this seemed ludicrous to me. Having had some exposure to MBA types, I'm casually acquainted with the concept of commodification and have always been told that content is the one thing that really resists commodification. Money is in content they said. And markets tended to bear that out -- margins have historically been lower for hardware manufacturers and commodities producers. And yet I started thinking about it and digitally encoded content is utterly commodified if there is no restriction on its distribution. This is a compelling notion. There may be only one Mick Jagger, but we can make exact error-free copies of
There is no reasonable way to control or regulate copying.
Sadly, I agree with you here. Not even the notion that such copying is unethical* or that one is not helping to patronize one's favorite artists seems dampen everyone's enthusiasm for acquiring music without paying for it. We all do love free stuff, don't we?
For you to assert that an attempt at DRM is not a natural response is a bit disingenuous, I think. It's an obvious reaction a manager of a content company would have to the idea of piracy: "can we stop it somehow?" A natural response from a developer (whose job might be in jeopardy) would certainly be, "well we can sure try!" I have no intention of defending any particular DRM scheme. I still assert that to attempt some kind of DRM was an obvious choice and would also point out (as mentioned elsewhere) that many games have adopted some social aspect today which obviates the old sell-by-the-copy profit model. Hate this must-be-connected aspect of games all you like. It's both a natural evolution of DRM and also an obvious example of how an industry under pressure twists and writhes in order to preserve profit streams under downsizing pressure. The presence of DRM (and all its negative aspects) is a symptom of content industries stung by a new reality: Digital content can be infinitely distributed and easily copied world wide and no one is forced to buy it any more. I wouldn't presume to prescribe whether you should or should not accept it. I would hope that you perceive it as somewhat inevitable -- sort of like the way people can be expected to panic when leaving a building on fire.
And yes I find the whole Bluray concept kind of sad and also kind of despicable -- certainly the ads and the fact that there seem to be PAL and NTSC variants and never the twain shall meet. Douchebaggery, for sure. I believe you are correct in your assessment that the business model is broken and tracking individual copies is a lost cause, but I wonder more than a bit at how you glibly dismiss the halving of a 10B industry with a wave of your hand. I imagine you'd feel pretty different if it was your industry. On the other hand, I'm always ranting about how download is the way and these physical media things are so stupid, so I can feel you a bit here.
As for letting Pirate Bay and Youtube copy content rampantly without remuneration for the artists, I strongly disagree. If anybody should be ponying up for this content it is a profitable commercial entity whose popularity rests so heavily on the ostensible value of this content. If Joe Citizen wants to give a copy to his/her BFF and significant other and book club and whoever else or wants to pass it on to generations of offspring or whatever then fine. For Kim DotCom to drive 10 Ferraris he bought selling ads on top of other people's hard work? Is that OK? I don't think it is.
And yes I agree that people will still write books and make music and write video games no matter what. We've all got our hobbies.
As for new business models. Hm. Advertising? Endorsements? I can't wait to hear new songs come out with product placements in them. Imagine V-I-A-G-R-A sung to the tune of Gloria. Or albums interspersed with advertisements. I can't stomach Spotify. I also wonder if perhaps you have too narrow a conception of copyright in dismissing it so completely. Part of the notion of copyright is that an artist has control over their work. Imagine Stairway To Heaven released by Led Zeppelin on Monday 8 Nov, 1971 and then released again by the Monkees Friday Nov 12? Or suppose Radiohead doesn't want OK Computer used to peddle Lenovo Computers? As you can imagine, it could be a very different world if commercial entities are allowed to copy/broadcast/appropriate copyrighted material without any regard to the rights of the creators.
As for patronage, I like that idea! How about the people who consume content actually send some money to the people who make it? Wouldn't that be a
Are you even bothering to read my comments? Piracy is related to loss of potential profit. I've said this multiple times.
Compare this quote of yours to the other one that I quoted you on:
Irrelevant. The risks the businesses take don't have anything to do with the pirates. That's something the businesses decide on their own.
Would you agree that "loss of potential profit" is a risk?
I suggest reading my comments again, because nowhere did I say that pirates weren't to blame at all, and nowhere did I say that all DRM is harmful (In fact, in the post you replied to, I merely said it was harmful in most cases!).
Admittedly you did not use the exact phrase in all cases in the thread that I read, but you also didn't limit your description of DRM to only some cases either as you can see here:
But of course, there is no excuse for DRM and draconian measures. Punishing innocents for the actions of others is simply unjustifiable to me.
How am I supposed to interpret the phrase 'there is no excuse for DRM' other than to assume that you think all DRM is bad.?
Am I misinterpreting something, or are you consistently trying to label me as a pirate despite the fact that I've denied this multiple times?
But no, you can't really measure the effects. I don't think I'll ever be able to see how it's a "huge" problem since it's all just potential profit and potential entertainment that's at stake.
I apologize for equating you to a pirate. I suppose I do suspect you of consuming entertainment you don't pay for -- if only because of what you've written. I hope that you can overlook my suspicions and read my words as though intended at an ostensible pirate. I used Napster and Kazaa a bit years ago but have sworn all that stuff off. I have no evidence that illegal copying decimated the music industry single-handedly, but I do believe that it is a major contributor. I also believe a similar shakedown in the movie industry is imminent unless the suits can get their act together and build affordable, legal alternatives.
Which doesn't even exist yet. Look, no matter how many potential losses you can think up, it's not going to change my opinion that people are exaggerating the effects of copyright infringement.
Thanks for letting me know.
Arrogance? Was what I said somehow false? Are the developers/companies not in any way related to the implementation of DRM?
Your arrogance persists! My post should clearly indicate that I'm aware of developers' role in creating DRM and furthermore points out precisely where I thought you were wrong. Perhaps you should read it again. I'm not trying to insist that DRM is a good thing, but you still blame developers alone for DRM and insist that it's both draconian and punitive in every case. That DRM would be attempted to combat unauthorized copying seems self-evident. It's an obvious response to an unethical behavior by some users. Yes it sucks most of the time and it fails utterly in preventing piracy, but it would be entirely unnecessary if everyone honored the terms of a digital content contract. People don't. So here we are. My point is that it's a two-way street. I'm fully aware that DRM is not necessary for a successful business model but to blame only the company for it is to ignore the elephant in the room: people who ignore the purchase contract (a binding legal document!) and make unathorized copies of games, music, movies, etc. If you don't like the contract, that doesn't mean you are still entitled to the product. I realize that it's futile to enforce this contract in the real world, but in terms of ethics, I believe I'm on fairly solid footing when I say that if you don't like the contract, you shouldn't buy the product. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you do not have an inalienable right to watch Game of Thrones without paying for it.
And, if you are continuing to try and make the point that it's a "miniscule" problem then perhaps you should opt to not consume content that has DRM or content that you do not pay for. That should be a miniscule sacrifice for you. At the same time, I hope that you can appreciate that one doesn't just wake up one day and magically know how to play violin or edit film or be a mastering engineer. For people who have chosen that lifestyle, the collapse of an industry is a serious proposition and has serious ramifications in the real world.
Irrelevant. The risks the businesses take don't have anything to do with the pirates. That's something the businesses decide on their own.
How in your mind do you magically divorce the effect of pirates on the desire of investors to invest in content industries? Are you suggesting that unauthorized copying doesn't affect movie revnues? Or perhaps that people will still invest in something even if it's going to fail?
And? I'll need to see conclusive evidence that it's because of music copying, for one.
Obviously, there is no way anyone could provide conclusive evidence of cause and effect. I suspect it's partly greater efficiency which has reduced revenue numbers (no to press and ship CDs, maintain store real estate, payola for radio douchebags, etc.) and partly a move from album-based sales to single sales, but it is certainly sobering to see an industry gutted this way.
But, even then, I still cannot see how music copying is anything more than a minuscule problem. This is mere entertainment, the effects of an individual copying music are completely uncertain and immeasurable, and the only thing that can be lost is potential profit.
Here is where the arrogance rankles me. When you suck $10B annually out of an industry, that means approximately 250,000 households lose their source of income. Sure they can do other stuff I guess, but the problem isn't what I would call 'miniscule'. It may be "mere" entertainment to you and you may try to rationalize your transgression, but millions of tiny transgressions do add up to a measurable effect.
And, please, stop beating that drum that the only thing lost is potential profit. What's potentially lost is entertainment itself. If no one pays for it, it doesn't get made. If fewer people pay for it, less of it gets made. If you
It costs $100,000 to 'create' a random pop song in digital format
Who's recording it, the LSO at Abbey Road? If not, you are getting ripped off.
Copyright wasn't created to sustain the creation of art. It wasn't (and still isn't) about making sure the artist gets rewarded for the effort. It was, and still is, about rewarding those entrepreneurs who are willing to take the risk of copying those works and distributing the copies. Creating art was never the expensive part. Making copies so that society could enjoy the art was.
Um, perhaps you have a source for this? Having recorded professionally, I know that in most cases the recordings (not to mention food, clothing, shelter, and transport for my band) were at least an order of magnitude higher than the first pressing of CDs. But that's just my personal experience.
Copyright is an anachronism.
Awesome! My new band is called the Beatles and I am going to start hiring Chinese musicians to record all of their material....oh fuck that. I'll just print a bunch of their CDs from the masters I have and start selling those!
Maybe I couldn't, but a guy in a trenchcoat offered to sell me an infinite number of monkeys that can eventually type anything!
selling DRM snakeoil would happen if there weren't any piracy at all - it's a business of it's own.
So true! I can't wait til I can get me some DRM without any of those annoying games/movies/songs attached to it!
This is an attitude that puzzles me. The game companies are the ones making these decisions. If anything, the blame mostly lies on them. They're the ones who implement the DRM and make the software, not the pirates. The pirates may indirectly cause them to change direction, but they still make the final decision.
Do not pretend as if no blame rests on the developers.
I suggest you consider dropping a bit of your own arrogance. Obviously a developer will always want to earn more and a customer will always want to pay less. DRM, as irritating as it is sometimes, can be born of an honest motivation: to limit game use to the person who purchased it. To say there is no excuse for the 'punishment' of 'draconian' DRM is a pretty nice bit of rhetoric but ignores entirely the fact that some DRM goes unnoticed by most (e.g., streaming a movie from netflix) and that unauthorized copying and distribution of games has a critical relation to the profitability of game development and this, in turn, has a critical relation to the desire of developers to make games. You may love your single-player, non-networked games a great deal, but if the prevailing business climate makes these games unattractive projects for developers, you won't have much to choose from.
As for your other post, I think you get a few things wrong:
I cannot fathom how anyone could perceive that as being a much more severe problem than jaywalking. They may or may not be losing potential profit, but that is all.
You don't seem to realize that game development, music, tv, and movies are considered high-risk/high reward investements. In some cases, it's not "potential profit" that is at stake but the very business itself. For every blockbuster game/movie/song/show out there, hundreds go belly up.
I cannot see how copying music is a "huge" problem even as someone who supports copyright.
I have pretty liberal attitudes toward music copying, but believe it's pretty telling that music industry revenues peaked in 1999 and plummeted for years. In fact, music industry revenues are down over 60% from where they were 13 years ago. In any other industry a 65% decline would be seen as a complete catastrophe. Maybe that's not a huge problem for you, but it certainly is for people who worked in the music industry.
Laughable. What do you suggest? Even as someone who supports the idea of reasonable copyright laws, I do not believe it is possible to stop.
Actually, it was legislation (the DMCA) that set the stage for the current legal situation vis-a-vis content sharing. In particular, the safe habor provision of that legislation is what protects companies like Google and the Pirate Bay and Megaupload from enormous civil actions by the MPAA and the RIAA -- that is why they have resorted to suing individuals instead. The DMCA says that these internet companies are not liable for the actions of their users and that has resulted in the proliferation of services that people can use to share copyrighted material freely. A reversal of this provision would immediately result in some colossal lawsuits.
I heartily agree with you that a legal alternative to downloading is the only way forward here. The suits in the motion picture business are screwing this up big time.
While I approve of the cynicism of your post, I think you need to examine your own circular reasoning. You are no different than a critic in boldly claiming that "anyone can make [art], and great artists aren't in short supply." The primary difference between you and an art critic would be that a reputable art critic at least makes an appeal to a history of art criticism. I disagree that great artists are abundant. On the contrary: most art is piss poor and finding good art is thrilling precisely because of how rare it is. I would no more trust you as an art critic than I would someone who draws a Dolan comic every now and then to decorate my house or create the titles for my hundred million dollar movie. I tend to trust professional critics like Roger Ebert or Peter Travers, not because they are on TV or write for Rolling Stone or because Roger Ebert wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, but because they do actually manage to say interesting things (q.v. Ebert's feud with Vincent Gallo). Art critics are under the same pressure as artists to gain notoriety and public trust and perform their work with wit and skill. We need these pompous art critics to tear down pompous (and ungodly rich) assholes like George Lucas who think they shit gold and clot our media pipeline with Jar Jar Binks. And here I am playing critic to the critic of art critics. Art itself is a circular business and, try how it may, never quite manages to escape its own circularity and nonlinear nature.
As for Stirling's soundbite:
Artists, in general, must either work for nothing, or sign away their rights as part of getting distribution.
This does not seem true to me. I'm not sure where to start. On the one hand, there are too many counterexamples of fabulously wealthy artists to say that one must sign away one's rights. On the other hand, ever heard of youtube or the pirate bay? Distribution today is free* if you don't mind giving all of your rights away. But then the question arises: have you really given your "rights" away? If so, to whom?
If you really want to cut out the middle man, pay some script kiddie to set up a website for you or build it yourself. This need not be an expensive investment. You could start with OSCommerce (which is FOSS and has modules for digital content sales). Other questions arise in this case:
* How much to charge? $10 $1? voluntary donations? free?
* What are the terms? Can downloaders burn my stuff onto CD/DVD/Bluray and sell it themselves? Can they give it to friends? Obviously, one has no real control here and one must rely on the honor system for any contract adherence.
The trick is apparently to monetize it yourself directly or indirectly (merch, ads, etc.) OR team up with trustworthy individuals who know what they are doing to monetize it for you. If you get screwed, you are partly to blame. My ex-girlfriend used to work for Interscope and related to me a few details regarding Trent Reznor's firing of his manager, the acrimonious aftermath, and then the fact that he released a record for free -- or whatever one was willing to contribute voluntarily -- and made more money than he'd ever made on a label. It's a curious example of old-paradigm-meets-new-paradigm inasmuch as the old machinery built NIN as a commercial entity.
Consider the two extreme alternatives:
1) Sign on with an organized, predatorial team of specialized experts who have managed to monetize a turd like Justin Beiber or the Black Eyed Peas
2) Give your shit away and hope for the best.
Seems to me there's a sweet spot in between somewhere, but who wouldn't want a few organized promoters, marketers, artists, managers, lawyers, and roadies on one's team? What's so puzzling is how both extremes in the whole pirates-vs-mafiaa war seem to be shooting themselves in the foot. MAFIAA sues its customers. Pirates sell ads while giving away the music created by the hard work of their heroes. WTF?
I think that Copyright -- as a piece of legis
Admittedly, this may be the result of my Western upbringing, but I think it might be accurate to portray the greatest living mathematicians as white -- with possibly an Indian or Asian or two. For the past few hundred years, most of the greatest mathematicians have been skinny white guys*. If you go back to the foundations of algebra, you do find some Persians (arguably "white") and some Indian guys. Given that the movie appears to be a US-centric one, it would have been pretty easy to throw in an Asian/Indian dude. Against my better judgment, I will go out on a limb and say that the African-American and Latino communities in the United States have not exactly produced a lot of notable mathematicians.
But I would agree that this looks like pretty lousy casting. Partly because most "white" guys in the US have shown declining math scores and partly because those dudes aren't nearly homely enough. Almost without exception, all the seriously capable math nerds I know have bad complexions, bad beards, and thick glasses. The trailer should also feature a scene where each of the smart guys is living at home with their mother.
* In the case of Kurt Gödel, very skinny.
Yes, and your salary needs to be increased. Oh, and your wife should treat you better.
So true! Finally someone understands me.
But seriously, to spend roughly 2 hours a day, 5 days a week *commuting*? That's time you don't get paid and time you don't spend with your loved ones and time you don't spend fapping or playing xbox or whatever. Ugh. All ecological considerations aside, that sounds sucky. Not sure what Lumpy does with the rest of his life, but he spends at least 5% of it driving a car to and from work.
Had you RTFA, you would see that these batteries have a storage density 15 times greater than current batteries. That would mean a 400lb battery weighs could be reduced to less than 30 lbs. Also, note the discussions here about multiple batteries. It doesn't have to be one giant battery and in fact probably shouldn't be for various practical reasons.
You glossed over the part where they describe *interchangeable batteries*. Once battery sizes and connections are standardized, everyone will have the same batteries. You can take the dead batteries out of your car and replace them with charged ones from the store at the charging station. This could easily be faster (and safer) than pumping gas.
Fuck you. No, really, I mean it, go fuck yourself. You have no idea at all to what extent my lifestyle is sustainable or not, what effects positive or negative it has on the environment.
This is insightful?
You should live closer to where you work. That commute is ridiculous.
I think this is in fact an ideological development as much as a commercial development. For this launch, SpaceX can claim the glory or the blame depending on the success / failure of the mission. NASA, for its part seems perfectly willing to share all their expertise in exchange for a guaranteed rate for space launches -- an accountability that their traditional funding patterns seem to lack entirely. And, if the mission fails, NASA can always blame SpaceX and keep themselves nice and squeaky clean.
Personally, I believe this opens the door to competition in orbital service provisioning and that's the real story. It's a bit like Apple delegating construction of all their iDevices to Foxconn instead of building a factory of their own.
Well let's hope they aren't knocking off the space shuttle -- you might recall that 33.3% of them exploded catastrophically, killing all their crew members.
Mod parent up. I found it really striking that SpaceX posts prices on their website. It remains to be seen how this plays out, but they are talking some serious shit over there at SpaceX. I'd love to see them back it up.
As for the need for a thousand dollar hammer, I call shenanigans. That hand tools in space link doesn't prove anything except carelessness.
You forgot Blue Origin (run by Amazon's Jeff Bezos) and the quaintly named but feisty Armadillo Aerospace. Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman -- I believe those companies have been contracting to NASA and the defense department for years but prefer to suck the government's massive teats by going through NASA, the DOD, and all those other agencies. In fact, Northrop more or less purchased Scaled Composites.
These new companies are fresh faces on the scene that has been dominated by aerospace heavy weights for years. I have great admiration for Elon Musk. That guy rules.
Yes but they have to prove they showed you something you didn't know in the first place. And, in my opinion, if you steal their idea, you deserve to get sued. The whole point is to avoid NDAs offered up by chumps. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Try and stick with the smart folks and you will make more money.
I agree that it's a good move. The stock market also seems to approve as IBM's stock is up about 240% since the sale of their PC business in 2004. Building hardware is a low-skill business relative to *designing* hardware -- or software. IBM doesn't make a lot of money off an assembly line worker building commodity hardware for low-tech applications. They do make a fortune marking up a highly educated, highly skilled knowledge worker designing novel network or supercomputer topologies built on commodity hardware.
NDA is really no big deal. Anything you bring to the table is still yours. It's also a very good way to get acquainted with potent ideas. When someone lacks an NDA, on the other hand, I tend to think they are not very serious.
I don't think you know much at all about how I think as you are too busy name-calling to consider my view point or perhaps address some of the non-AGW aspects of rampant petroleum consumption that I've mentioned. It seems pretty obvious to me that you *believe* that climate science is a sham and then you run around pretending to offer pseudo-scientific opinions about it based on nothing at all. You make assertions about temperatures being normal without any real scientific justifications at all and then snarl and call people names if they disagree with you and then you accuse them of being unscientific. Personally, I'm undecided about AGW. There do appear to be vested interests on both sides of the argument -- not just the unctuous researchers trying to suck the government teat that you constantly call out but also their unscrupulous counterparts that suck the Exxon or Koch family teats that you never bother to mention. You moan about confused energy policy and then neglect to mention subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry. You deny that you typically vote Republican and that you think Obama is a socialist and yet you espouse libertarianism and almost in the same breath you call Obama a fascist "which is a form of socialist." In one minute you are slamming Obama for being a facist and then talking about how the Chinese (hello, COMMUNISTS) have taken over the world's manufacturing duties. You wave your hand and blame regulation as though you were some kind of fucking expert. I don't buy it.
I'm willing to take you at your word that I was wrong in my predictions about you, but I still get the impression -- a subjective one -- that you are not the enlightened libertarian you pretend to be but rather a lazy and paranoid member of the petty bourgeoisie blindly defending the status quo because you are afraid of any kind of change. If you are going to run around pretending to really know the truth without any credentials of any kind or even any good status and research (or even good links for that matter) then someone is going to troll you. And if you don't provide facts, the troll doesn't have to either. I doubt you'll take my advice, but I would recommend more facts and less vitriol.