I'm convinced that the RIAA and MPAA has Slashdot accounts, and just lie in wait... "Oh, look, a cool new technology that vaguely threatens our self-centered view of the world...EXTERMINATE!!!!"
Look at the reviews for Alexander. Ebert said the film was crap. That's a film they spent $150mil to create!
With games like Halo 2 grosing $100 mil on the first day, for a much smaller budget compared to Alexander, the bottom line is clear. The age of movies is waning.
I agree with you general comment, although I need to be picky -- the age of the overblown Bruckheimer-esque piece of crap Hollywood epic, is waning. There are lots of films, usually 'indie', that have very modest budgets but do quite well. Of the top of my head, "Dancer in the Dark" was done with a few digital video cameras that were under $10k. Hollywood needs to decide what is a better use of its money... $150 million on a movie that might break $160 gross? Or a series of 10-20 $5 million movies that make $10 million?
I hear what both you, and Ignignot (782335)'s post above are talking about... I was using Starbucks as an example of taking something with little value and turning it into a profitable experience.
I avoid Starbucks like the plague, but have a very laissez-faire attitude towards them...if people want to buy their product, more power to them. I'd feel better about it if they committed to 'fair trade practices' coffee beans, but otherwise live and let live.
I agree with your take on the strategy. However, I optimistically see this as a possible building block for a more comprehensive 'on demand' strategy. When I say 'strategy', i mean it as a 'business opportunity in the making' vs 'deliberate action on the part of the labels'.
#1. Make it p2p so that operating costs are defrayed by subscribers.
#2. Secure login, unique key/identifier, etc.
#3. Unlimited access to back catalogue. Variety of bitrates and formats of files allowed.
#4. Client contains advertisements in way of discrete banners, controlled by p2p service (another source of revenue).
#5. Monthly fee equivalent roughly to that of a MMORPG, or basic cable/telephone service. Say $20 USD a month. Some respectable caps can be in place (say 10gb a month, or only so much bandwidth per second)
#6. Tracking mechanisms used to identify # of downloads per file. Artists compensated based on volume of traffic.
Such a service would be ridicuously popular and successful IMHO. If hundreds of thousands would pay $19.95 a month to play everquest or Ultima online on a indefinite basis, think of the audience available today? Music is a much bigger target audience than MMORG, is easier to deliver, and has longer lasting appeal.
Record labels, listen to marketing 101. "Market the sizzle, not the steak.". Files = steak. There will ALWAYS be file traders. These people you would never gain as clients no matter what you do. However, convenience = sizzle. Why would someone pay $3.50 for a coffee at Starbucks? Because of the experience. Focus on the experience.
How is trying to bypass a broekn and buggy overzellous copy protection system AFTER I've payed money for the prodyct cheating anyone out of compensation for their work? Downloading the game witout paying for it would qualify, but getting their spyware off my computer seems like a good thing to me.
Its simple. You shouldn't have bought the game. Valve has been 100% forthcoming with the details on what Steam is, and how it will work... they even gave you a preview with the end-generation HL1/CS product.
You have to consider the fact that the copy protection is intended to PROTECT the online experience. Generic keys/unsecured installs = hacks. Hacks = bad. I'm not saying there won't be hacks without illegitimate accounts, but it certainly provides Valve with more tools to police the environment.
Good idea. There's the off-chance that you woke up late and are posting from home if its before 11am. Best to aim for mid-day posts so its on your company's time.
I think that your objections are not sufficient to distinguish that Steam is inferior to CD media.
How about "in 5-10 years if I lose/crack a CD, I can't get another copy since its out of print"?
How about "in 5-10 years even if I have a CD/copy, it will be difficult/impossible for me to find a patch for my game"?
The problems you are complaining about -- online registration/key release -- are problematic with most online experiences nowadays. MMORPG will EXPIRE YOUR ACCOUNT if you don't pay a monthly fee. Given the amount of online game cheats, illicit ISOs being traded, and the relative short life of a PC based computer game, I'm happy that Valve is trying something innovative. Steam I suspect will become *THE* model of online computer games in the future. Blizzard certainly has not been suffering with Battle.net.
For the record: if you want a stand alone piece of media that will always play on a set configuration, buy a console system.
You and some of the other posters are correct...I should have ammended my comments with "in the modern era", mainly menaing since FDR. Things for the most part stabilised in the US post-WWI, but things really didn't get rolling until WWII as far as a just and civilised society.
Also, in comparison with most other nations of the day, the US was the model of restraint. If for example we wish to continue with the comparison with China, the Chinese have enjoyed the Boxer Rebellion, several military coups, Chiang-Kai Shek, the Communist Revolution, and the Cultural Revolution. They still win the 'disrespect of human dignity' race by a country mile.
True... but with the exception of a few anti-war protestors being shot in the 1960s, I think the US can be credited with a bit more social restraint in 'managing' societal activities. I don't recall police indiscriminantly shooting and killing a few thousand unarmed protestors ever in your history.
The US has sunk pretty low in recent years, but still has a far way to go to reach the depravity of Chinese or North Korean societies.
Agree 100%. Academia has a vested interest in protecting their control over information; publications and institutional endorsements are stamps of approval. Although I agree that peer review is extremely important, I also recongise that these academic institutions are far from flawless. As an example, my alma mater (University of Toronto) hosted eugenics conferences in the 1930s -- an egregious example of where credibility can be misused. 'This is obviously leading scientific theory if UofT is sponsoring this research!!!'
I think the argument that Wikipedia has to compete with traditional encyclopedias is flawed. Wikipedia represents a new, more progressive approach to education -- give students the tools to critically evaluate and research, and develop their OWN opinions on subjects. Although everyone is worried "Wikipedia might spread dis-information!!!" I think they miss the point...Wikipedia teaches us that alot of 'facts' are actually mutable, constantly changing, and that a critical mind can NEVER stop questioning what its presented with. Although this may be less true in areas of mathematics and physical sciences, it certainly is true in areas of artistic endeavour and social sciences.
Alright, here's an opportunity for you to confess -- you both still spend 90% of your online gaming time playing Counterstrike and Warcraft 2, and you're running a Voodoo 3 card, right?:)
I did a quick search and couldn't find much; I suspect my professor (name escapes me - i would have recognised it on the faculty list though!) retired as i took the course ~1996 and he was in his late 50s at the time.
UofT's department of ancient and middle eastern studies has a website. I'm happy to see that the summer international program has been now extended to undergraduates and is no longer just a Masters option. This was the program that completed the 'proof of concept' pyramid (and other structures) building project.
I remember my prof remarking that it was a very inexpensive tour. Since you were focused on using only natural implements and materials, they had to make their own tools -- how cost effective was that?:)
The one thing people forget about Egypt was that it was an 8 month growing season, and a 4 month flood season. Most of the egyptian structures were built in the 4 months of downtime. Think of it-- if you're a pharoah, you want to keep your people as busy as possible. Starving peasants have a tendency of rebelling... "idle hands are the devil's work". So the pyramids served a religious function, but also served a population control function as well. 4 months x 1500 years of free labour can accomplish some pretty impressive things.
Stonehenge and the Spinx don't even get close to the 10,000 year mark. The nile was settled as far back as 6,000 BC, but what we're recognise as the First Dynasty of Egypt occurs as recently as 3,300 BC.
Just because something ~looks~ complex, even in comparison to modern day technology, does not make it such. 10 years ago when I was at the University of Toronto, the Egyptology masters program sent a number of students over to Egypt to prove how easy it was to build a pyramid. A team of 10 men, using nothing more complex than wood planks (greased with animal lard), a pulley, and large sticks to act as levers, were able to move 2 ton stone blocks with ease.
Stonehenge doesn't even approach the 10,000 year mark either. Roughly carbon dated to 3,000 BC as well. Those stones are NOT as hard to move as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Unfortunately history of civilisations is not seriously considered anywhere prior to 10,000 BC, and probably more realistically 6,000 BC. There is no significant historical evidence pre-ice age that homo sapiens were anything more than small nomadic bands. Primitive language was probably available, as well as iconogaphy and basic tools. Large groupings of people would have been nigh-impossible in the absences of farming, husbandry, and written language.
Its an interesting hypothesis, but historical record does not support the notion. It would be an interesting theory though... HP Lovecraft and Robert E Howard certainly filled in the pre-Ice Age gap nicely in the realm of fiction.:)
I used to have to get up half and hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, head off to work at the coal mine and pay for the luxury of working there, come home 2 hours after I went to sleep, and THEN father would cut us in two with a breadknife and dance on our graves singing Hallelujah.
And you tell kids these days about how they have it so easy, and they don't believe you...
I think you misintrepret my comment -- I am not arguing against deterrents, I am arguing against the severity of punishment required to make deterrents effective.
Take the following example:
1. Every time you 'illegally' download a copyrighted file, there is a 50%+ chance that you will receive a $100 fine.
or
2. 10 file traders per year will be rounded up and shot.
A rational mind would say "no way I'm going to trade files, the possibility of DEATH is not worth the risk." However, patterned human behaviour shows time and again that people will keep trading files as long as they don't have any immediate first hand knowledge of a consequence.
This single harsh fine against a hardcore spammer will NOT reduce the spam volume in your mailbox AT ALL. The 'chilling effect' expected on other spammers will never appear. At best, spamming activity will move 100% offshore...and probably become more difficult to prevent at that point.
The concept that harsh punishments act as a more effective deterrent than 'strong chance of being caught' with a minor fine has been disproven time and again. You'll learn this in any 101 Psychology or Criminal Law or Sociology course pretty much.
As much as I hate spam, I would much rather see the man bankrupted, or seriously fined than server ANY jail time. At no point has my quality of life or personal safety ever been threatened by spam. Incarceration should be an option of last resort.
I find it funny that most slashdotters will cry foul at ~any~ type of fine for file trading or uncapping their modems or for warddriving, and then scream for violent dismemberment of someone who sends unsolicited e-mails.
Hopefully they'll forget about AOL Canada altogether and we can fly under the radar of crappy service and overpriced malware!!! Huzzah!
Seriously though, for all the flames we slashdotters lob at AOL, I don't think they care. Since the election results, I've come to realise that there is a HUGE divide in the US. Its difficult to avoid stereotyping, but if you look at voting states and voting distribution, you're left with Norther/Coastal US states that tend to be tech-savy, progressive, liberal in attitudes. This contrasts with the mid-west and southern states that are more traditional in both religious outlook and industrial makeup of their economies.
AOL started with the tech-boom in the 1990s, but their product offering now targets the '51%'. 'Conservatives' that prefer to censor their children's access to the internet and control waht they're viewing. People who are distrustful of technology and reply upon AOL to provide a shield between themselves and the wild-wild-west internet. People who think 56.6k is 'good enough'.
This divison into multiple units might work. The media-delivery arm just might create something that geeks like, and are willing to pay for. Whereas the traditional AOL service we'll continue to flame, lambast, and avoid like the plague...but might make money elsewhere.
I doubt they'll succeed, but its a better strategy than what they had.
I've spent alot of time considering my music purchasing habits lately, and I came to the conclusion that it ~IS~ the quality of music that affects my value judgment on whether to buy or download.
A few weeks ago, I spent $170 Canadian on the Solti recording of The Ring Cycle (Wagner). And I considered it an INCREDIBLE BARGAIN. 18 cds of one of the best opera recordings ever made. 18+ hours of music. Not a single moment wasted on a single CD.
And while in the store, I was talking to some other opera fans. It is not uncommon for people to have 5 or 10 different complete sets of The Ring Cycle.
I think the music industry has created a whole generation of severely cynical, jaded music fans of popular music. Music videos aren't artistic interpreation -- they're commericals to sell CDs. Radio play isn't for the enjoyment of the listener -- they're to sell CDs. Concert tours are not social gatherings of like minded people to appreciate music -- they're promotional tours to sell CDs.
Classical and jazz and opera music fans though don't seem to share this perspective. Why? Because these are niche markets that long ago had to learn to compete with the rock'n'roll/hiphop/disco jugernaut. They focused on quality not quantity, on audio fidelity not overproduced noise, and on talent vs marketability. I would not wish to compare talent levels or musical ability of these genres with those in popular music. I doubt Usher or Cher or Britney Spears could even denote the keys that comprise a G-chord.
I don't mind spending money on a product or service that I'm going to use. I think the buying public on the whole feels this way as well... the industry should consider themselves lucky that there's enough demand to download the music they produce. If you were to tighten the reigns on music downloading past the point of rational risk/reward, I think demand would just disappear. Those lost downloads are NOT going to translate into CD sales.
would be happy to admit my mistake, although i'd request an authenticating source for your numbers?
i might have confused "middle east oil" with "OPEC" oil for starters.
Quick google finds this article that suggests "The U.S. consumes over 25 percent of all oil currently produced globally, imports over half of the oil it now consumes...". This would imply that the US imports no more than say 60% of its oil currently. Given that non-OPEC countries like Canada and Russia and numerous Nordic countries are contributing to the US' supply I think I can stand by my original statement.
US imports more oil than it produces domestically -- yes.
US imports of OPEC oil is about 30% of its dependency -- yes. This was my point.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 for nostalgia, +1 for funny, +1 for insightful.
:)
EX-NAY on SUPRANOVA-NAY!!!!!!
I'm convinced that the RIAA and MPAA has Slashdot accounts, and just lie in wait... "Oh, look, a cool new technology that vaguely threatens our self-centered view of the world...EXTERMINATE!!!!"
Look at the reviews for Alexander. Ebert said the film was crap. That's a film they spent $150mil to create!
With games like Halo 2 grosing $100 mil on the first day, for a much smaller budget compared to Alexander, the bottom line is clear. The age of movies is waning.
I agree with you general comment, although I need to be picky -- the age of the overblown Bruckheimer-esque piece of crap Hollywood epic, is waning. There are lots of films, usually 'indie', that have very modest budgets but do quite well. Of the top of my head, "Dancer in the Dark" was done with a few digital video cameras that were under $10k. Hollywood needs to decide what is a better use of its money... $150 million on a movie that might break $160 gross? Or a series of 10-20 $5 million movies that make $10 million?
I think they'd flunk a few chapters...
1. "The Customer is always right". aka "Suing customers is bad for business." aka "How NOT to alienate a customer base."
2. Business ethics. Okay, they fail the whole semester...
3. Technology is your friend. aka "How to learn to adapt and love technology 10 years earlier" aka "The VCR will not destroy your industry."
4. Quality Assurance. Okay, they fail this on the basis of Milli Vanilli, Cher, Britney Spears, MC Hammer...oi vey...
I hear what both you, and Ignignot (782335)'s post above are talking about... I was using Starbucks as an example of taking something with little value and turning it into a profitable experience.
I avoid Starbucks like the plague, but have a very laissez-faire attitude towards them...if people want to buy their product, more power to them. I'd feel better about it if they committed to 'fair trade practices' coffee beans, but otherwise live and let live.
I agree with your take on the strategy. However, I optimistically see this as a possible building block for a more comprehensive 'on demand' strategy. When I say 'strategy', i mean it as a 'business opportunity in the making' vs 'deliberate action on the part of the labels'.
#1. Make it p2p so that operating costs are defrayed by subscribers.
#2. Secure login, unique key/identifier, etc.
#3. Unlimited access to back catalogue. Variety of bitrates and formats of files allowed.
#4. Client contains advertisements in way of discrete banners, controlled by p2p service (another source of revenue).
#5. Monthly fee equivalent roughly to that of a MMORPG, or basic cable/telephone service. Say $20 USD a month. Some respectable caps can be in place (say 10gb a month, or only so much bandwidth per second)
#6. Tracking mechanisms used to identify # of downloads per file. Artists compensated based on volume of traffic.
Such a service would be ridicuously popular and successful IMHO. If hundreds of thousands would pay $19.95 a month to play everquest or Ultima online on a indefinite basis, think of the audience available today? Music is a much bigger target audience than MMORG, is easier to deliver, and has longer lasting appeal.
Record labels, listen to marketing 101. "Market the sizzle, not the steak.". Files = steak. There will ALWAYS be file traders. These people you would never gain as clients no matter what you do. However, convenience = sizzle. Why would someone pay $3.50 for a coffee at Starbucks? Because of the experience. Focus on the experience.
How is trying to bypass a broekn and buggy overzellous copy protection system AFTER I've payed money for the prodyct cheating anyone out of compensation for their work? Downloading the game witout paying for it would qualify, but getting their spyware off my computer seems like a good thing to me.
Its simple. You shouldn't have bought the game. Valve has been 100% forthcoming with the details on what Steam is, and how it will work... they even gave you a preview with the end-generation HL1/CS product.
You have to consider the fact that the copy protection is intended to PROTECT the online experience. Generic keys/unsecured installs = hacks. Hacks = bad. I'm not saying there won't be hacks without illegitimate accounts, but it certainly provides Valve with more tools to police the environment.
I always thought an HBO series, 12 episodes, staring middle-weight actors ~might~ be able to pull it off.
No way the depth of the comic is ever conveyed to the screen, even if done shot-for-shot.
No more posting before 11 a.m.
Good idea. There's the off-chance that you woke up late and are posting from home if its before 11am. Best to aim for mid-day posts so its on your company's time.
I think that your objections are not sufficient to distinguish that Steam is inferior to CD media. How about "in 5-10 years if I lose/crack a CD, I can't get another copy since its out of print"? How about "in 5-10 years even if I have a CD/copy, it will be difficult/impossible for me to find a patch for my game"?
The problems you are complaining about -- online registration/key release -- are problematic with most online experiences nowadays. MMORPG will EXPIRE YOUR ACCOUNT if you don't pay a monthly fee. Given the amount of online game cheats, illicit ISOs being traded, and the relative short life of a PC based computer game, I'm happy that Valve is trying something innovative. Steam I suspect will become *THE* model of online computer games in the future. Blizzard certainly has not been suffering with Battle.net.
For the record: if you want a stand alone piece of media that will always play on a set configuration, buy a console system.
You and some of the other posters are correct...I should have ammended my comments with "in the modern era", mainly menaing since FDR. Things for the most part stabilised in the US post-WWI, but things really didn't get rolling until WWII as far as a just and civilised society.
Also, in comparison with most other nations of the day, the US was the model of restraint. If for example we wish to continue with the comparison with China, the Chinese have enjoyed the Boxer Rebellion, several military coups, Chiang-Kai Shek, the Communist Revolution, and the Cultural Revolution. They still win the 'disrespect of human dignity' race by a country mile.
True... but with the exception of a few anti-war protestors being shot in the 1960s, I think the US can be credited with a bit more social restraint in 'managing' societal activities. I don't recall police indiscriminantly shooting and killing a few thousand unarmed protestors ever in your history.
The US has sunk pretty low in recent years, but still has a far way to go to reach the depravity of Chinese or North Korean societies.
Agree 100%. Academia has a vested interest in protecting their control over information; publications and institutional endorsements are stamps of approval. Although I agree that peer review is extremely important, I also recongise that these academic institutions are far from flawless. As an example, my alma mater (University of Toronto) hosted eugenics conferences in the 1930s -- an egregious example of where credibility can be misused. 'This is obviously leading scientific theory if UofT is sponsoring this research!!!'
I think the argument that Wikipedia has to compete with traditional encyclopedias is flawed. Wikipedia represents a new, more progressive approach to education -- give students the tools to critically evaluate and research, and develop their OWN opinions on subjects. Although everyone is worried "Wikipedia might spread dis-information!!!" I think they miss the point...Wikipedia teaches us that alot of 'facts' are actually mutable, constantly changing, and that a critical mind can NEVER stop questioning what its presented with. Although this may be less true in areas of mathematics and physical sciences, it certainly is true in areas of artistic endeavour and social sciences.
They're not very appreciative of their Slashdot fans I've noticed too.
Alright, here's an opportunity for you to confess -- you both still spend 90% of your online gaming time playing Counterstrike and Warcraft 2, and you're running a Voodoo 3 card, right? :)
I did a quick search and couldn't find much; I suspect my professor (name escapes me - i would have recognised it on the faculty list though!) retired as i took the course ~1996 and he was in his late 50s at the time.
:)
UofT's department of ancient and middle eastern studies has a website. I'm happy to see that the summer international program has been now extended to undergraduates and is no longer just a Masters option. This was the program that completed the 'proof of concept' pyramid (and other structures) building project.
UofT International Summer Program
I remember my prof remarking that it was a very inexpensive tour. Since you were focused on using only natural implements and materials, they had to make their own tools -- how cost effective was that?
The one thing people forget about Egypt was that it was an 8 month growing season, and a 4 month flood season. Most of the egyptian structures were built in the 4 months of downtime. Think of it-- if you're a pharoah, you want to keep your people as busy as possible. Starving peasants have a tendency of rebelling... "idle hands are the devil's work". So the pyramids served a religious function, but also served a population control function as well. 4 months x 1500 years of free labour can accomplish some pretty impressive things.
Stonehenge and the Spinx don't even get close to the 10,000 year mark. The nile was settled as far back as 6,000 BC, but what we're recognise as the First Dynasty of Egypt occurs as recently as 3,300 BC.
Just because something ~looks~ complex, even in comparison to modern day technology, does not make it such. 10 years ago when I was at the University of Toronto, the Egyptology masters program sent a number of students over to Egypt to prove how easy it was to build a pyramid. A team of 10 men, using nothing more complex than wood planks (greased with animal lard), a pulley, and large sticks to act as levers, were able to move 2 ton stone blocks with ease.
Stonehenge doesn't even approach the 10,000 year mark either. Roughly carbon dated to 3,000 BC as well. Those stones are NOT as hard to move as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Unfortunately history of civilisations is not seriously considered anywhere prior to 10,000 BC, and probably more realistically 6,000 BC. There is no significant historical evidence pre-ice age that homo sapiens were anything more than small nomadic bands. Primitive language was probably available, as well as iconogaphy and basic tools. Large groupings of people would have been nigh-impossible in the absences of farming, husbandry, and written language.
:)
Its an interesting hypothesis, but historical record does not support the notion. It would be an interesting theory though... HP Lovecraft and Robert E Howard certainly filled in the pre-Ice Age gap nicely in the realm of fiction.
Luxury.
You were lucky.
I used to have to get up half and hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, head off to work at the coal mine and pay for the luxury of working there, come home 2 hours after I went to sleep, and THEN father would cut us in two with a breadknife and dance on our graves singing Hallelujah.
And you tell kids these days about how they have it so easy, and they don't believe you...
I think you misintrepret my comment -- I am not arguing against deterrents, I am arguing against the severity of punishment required to make deterrents effective.
Take the following example:
1. Every time you 'illegally' download a copyrighted file, there is a 50%+ chance that you will receive a $100 fine.
or
2. 10 file traders per year will be rounded up and shot.
A rational mind would say "no way I'm going to trade files, the possibility of DEATH is not worth the risk." However, patterned human behaviour shows time and again that people will keep trading files as long as they don't have any immediate first hand knowledge of a consequence.
This single harsh fine against a hardcore spammer will NOT reduce the spam volume in your mailbox AT ALL. The 'chilling effect' expected on other spammers will never appear. At best, spamming activity will move 100% offshore...and probably become more difficult to prevent at that point.
The concept that harsh punishments act as a more effective deterrent than 'strong chance of being caught' with a minor fine has been disproven time and again. You'll learn this in any 101 Psychology or Criminal Law or Sociology course pretty much.
As much as I hate spam, I would much rather see the man bankrupted, or seriously fined than server ANY jail time. At no point has my quality of life or personal safety ever been threatened by spam. Incarceration should be an option of last resort.
I find it funny that most slashdotters will cry foul at ~any~ type of fine for file trading or uncapping their modems or for warddriving, and then scream for violent dismemberment of someone who sends unsolicited e-mails.
Remember Family Guy?
"Present hall pass now!"
Girl timidly shows hall pass.
"PRESENT HALL PASS NOW!!!!"
Hopefully they'll forget about AOL Canada altogether and we can fly under the radar of crappy service and overpriced malware!!! Huzzah!
Seriously though, for all the flames we slashdotters lob at AOL, I don't think they care. Since the election results, I've come to realise that there is a HUGE divide in the US. Its difficult to avoid stereotyping, but if you look at voting states and voting distribution, you're left with Norther/Coastal US states that tend to be tech-savy, progressive, liberal in attitudes. This contrasts with the mid-west and southern states that are more traditional in both religious outlook and industrial makeup of their economies.
AOL started with the tech-boom in the 1990s, but their product offering now targets the '51%'. 'Conservatives' that prefer to censor their children's access to the internet and control waht they're viewing. People who are distrustful of technology and reply upon AOL to provide a shield between themselves and the wild-wild-west internet. People who think 56.6k is 'good enough'.
This divison into multiple units might work. The media-delivery arm just might create something that geeks like, and are willing to pay for. Whereas the traditional AOL service we'll continue to flame, lambast, and avoid like the plague...but might make money elsewhere.
I doubt they'll succeed, but its a better strategy than what they had.
I've spent alot of time considering my music purchasing habits lately, and I came to the conclusion that it ~IS~ the quality of music that affects my value judgment on whether to buy or download.
A few weeks ago, I spent $170 Canadian on the Solti recording of The Ring Cycle (Wagner). And I considered it an INCREDIBLE BARGAIN. 18 cds of one of the best opera recordings ever made. 18+ hours of music. Not a single moment wasted on a single CD.
And while in the store, I was talking to some other opera fans. It is not uncommon for people to have 5 or 10 different complete sets of The Ring Cycle.
I think the music industry has created a whole generation of severely cynical, jaded music fans of popular music. Music videos aren't artistic interpreation -- they're commericals to sell CDs. Radio play isn't for the enjoyment of the listener -- they're to sell CDs. Concert tours are not social gatherings of like minded people to appreciate music -- they're promotional tours to sell CDs.
Classical and jazz and opera music fans though don't seem to share this perspective. Why? Because these are niche markets that long ago had to learn to compete with the rock'n'roll/hiphop/disco jugernaut. They focused on quality not quantity, on audio fidelity not overproduced noise, and on talent vs marketability. I would not wish to compare talent levels or musical ability of these genres with those in popular music. I doubt Usher or Cher or Britney Spears could even denote the keys that comprise a G-chord.
I don't mind spending money on a product or service that I'm going to use. I think the buying public on the whole feels this way as well... the industry should consider themselves lucky that there's enough demand to download the music they produce. If you were to tighten the reigns on music downloading past the point of rational risk/reward, I think demand would just disappear. Those lost downloads are NOT going to translate into CD sales.
would be happy to admit my mistake, although i'd request an authenticating source for your numbers?
i might have confused "middle east oil" with "OPEC" oil for starters.
Quick google finds this article that suggests "The U.S. consumes over 25 percent of all oil currently produced globally, imports over half of the oil it now consumes...". This would imply that the US imports no more than say 60% of its oil currently. Given that non-OPEC countries like Canada and Russia and numerous Nordic countries are contributing to the US' supply I think I can stand by my original statement.
US imports more oil than it produces domestically -- yes.
US imports of OPEC oil is about 30% of its dependency -- yes. This was my point.