Almost as well as letting banks and investment companies police themselves.
Or oil companies policing themselves.
Or government contractors with automatic weapons police themselves.
And the deregulated airline industry has done wonders for air travel.
Government bad, corporate self-regulation good. Just stick to that line and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
Or letting Internet users police themselves.
This just part of the process of finding an UNhappy balance between freedom and control. Myriad, mutually exclusive motives guarantee that any reasonable solution must leave the fringes deeply unsatisfied.
... everyone has to realize that mass media is *expensive*. Overcoming the social inertia associated with a "hit" (movie, single, album, whatever) is necessarily expensive. Because of this, income streams *will* be protected.
Sure, you get the flukes--but they're one-offs--the next one costs big time.
Imagine you own a top-3 radio station in a tier-1 or tier-2 market and you are slamming the latest "it" band 40-something times a day and the label is selling ten-thousand CDs a week... are you going to be satisfied with the advertising revenue that generates? That ad revenue going to pay the salary (or syndication costs) of some whiney morning show? Not even close.
That's why CD's cost so much: it's expensive getting the lemming to all jump off the cliff at the same spot.
While you might not yet be seeing dramatic effects of file-swapping on label's gross sales, you're seeing a dramatic decline in major labels taking chances on new bands.
One used to criticize major labels for throwing band after band at the wall instead of artist development. At least in them good ol' days, a band could get signed and thrown... up hill... both ways... in the snow...
Brootal
"I'm sure most musicians wouldn't mind having new revenue streams to tap, its just more money in their pockets."
Unfortunately, however well-intentioned the thought is, the reality is that most musicians would not realize any additional income, unless you have change for a penny. How much do you think consumers are going to pay either directly or indirectly? Divide that by the number of artists who will think they are entitled to be paid. Small number. Very.
Such a company would be faced with the same (greater?) obstacles as ASCAP/BMI/SESAC with respect to radioplay.
"Online distribution/radio HAS to be cheaper than retail channels. Common sense says so."
How so? Sure, the raw cost of goods sold is cheaper (i.e. little or no manufacturing costs), but why would the promotional costs (to both radio and retail) necessarilly be cheaper online? If anything, such costs might actually be significantly greater given the relatively much smaller barrier to entry for the hacks. IT is not cheap to rise above the din of background noise.
If the solutions were so self-evident, I am sure somebody would have successfully exploited them.
"What if I write a note saying 'Please let my child by this game anyway?' Will the retailer accept it? I doubt it."
So quit playing on your computer, get off your ass and go buy it for them. Or would that be too much to ask of you?
"The law sounds like it's going to be too absolute to allow for things like their parents okaying it."
The St. Louis County regulation provided that stores, if they chose, could implement a system where the parent could go in and "okay" their children to purchase such games.
Dunno if this regulation will provide the same. I would imagine, though, that mass-retailers like Best Buy aren't going to go through the hassle... they'll just make you buy it for your children.
Your argument is strained because it could easily be applied to porn and I don't think you would want your kids going into Circle-K being able to buy "Ass Reaming Gangbang Girls."
"Let me parent my kids, don't make the decisions for me. If you feel the decision must be made for me, you better convince me that there's a problem that you're really fixing."
How would it impair you from parenting your kids... that argument always cracks me up. It *insists* that you parent your kids rather than letting them run amok.
"You've always been able to copy them. It's PLAYING them that's been the problem. If even the EFF can be confused on this point, what chance do we have to get Joe American to understand?"
See, that's just the problem. It takes lawyers and pedantic linguaphiles like you to "not get it."
For the average person, "copying" a DVD would imply being able to *play* the copy.
Slashdot Mirror
"let companies police themselves"
Almost as well as letting banks and investment companies police themselves.
Or oil companies policing themselves.
Or government contractors with automatic weapons police themselves.
And the deregulated airline industry has done wonders for air travel.
Government bad, corporate self-regulation good. Just stick to that line and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
Or letting Internet users police themselves. This just part of the process of finding an UNhappy balance between freedom and control. Myriad, mutually exclusive motives guarantee that any reasonable solution must leave the fringes deeply unsatisfied.
Saying, "Information wants to be free" is no different than saying, "Your laptop wants me to hit you over the head and take it from you."
You also can't spell "Stand up for yourself, pussy" without "pussy."
Sure, you get the flukes--but they're one-offs--the next one costs big time.
Imagine you own a top-3 radio station in a tier-1 or tier-2 market and you are slamming the latest "it" band 40-something times a day and the label is selling ten-thousand CDs a week ... are you going to be satisfied with the advertising revenue that generates? That ad revenue going to pay the salary (or syndication costs) of some whiney morning show? Not even close.
That's why CD's cost so much: it's expensive getting the lemming to all jump off the cliff at the same spot.
While you might not yet be seeing dramatic effects of file-swapping on label's gross sales, you're seeing a dramatic decline in major labels taking chances on new bands.
One used to criticize major labels for throwing band after band at the wall instead of artist development. At least in them good ol' days, a band could get signed and thrown ... up hill ... both ways ... in the snow ...
Brootal
Unfortunately, however well-intentioned the thought is, the reality is that most musicians would not realize any additional income, unless you have change for a penny. How much do you think consumers are going to pay either directly or indirectly? Divide that by the number of artists who will think they are entitled to be paid. Small number. Very.
Such a company would be faced with the same (greater?) obstacles as ASCAP/BMI/SESAC with respect to radioplay.
"Online distribution/radio HAS to be cheaper than retail channels. Common sense says so."
How so? Sure, the raw cost of goods sold is cheaper (i.e. little or no manufacturing costs), but why would the promotional costs (to both radio and retail) necessarilly be cheaper online? If anything, such costs might actually be significantly greater given the relatively much smaller barrier to entry for the hacks. IT is not cheap to rise above the din of background noise.
If the solutions were so self-evident, I am sure somebody would have successfully exploited them.
Brootal
So quit playing on your computer, get off your ass and go buy it for them. Or would that be too much to ask of you?
"The law sounds like it's going to be too absolute to allow for things like their parents okaying it."
The St. Louis County regulation provided that stores, if they chose, could implement a system where the parent could go in and "okay" their children to purchase such games.
Dunno if this regulation will provide the same. I would imagine, though, that mass-retailers like Best Buy aren't going to go through the hassle ... they'll just make you buy it for your children.
Your argument is strained because it could easily be applied to porn and I don't think you would want your kids going into Circle-K being able to buy "Ass Reaming Gangbang Girls."
"Let me parent my kids, don't make the decisions for me. If you feel the decision must be made for me, you better convince me that there's a problem that you're really fixing."
How would it impair you from parenting your kids ... that argument always cracks me up. It *insists* that you parent your kids rather than letting them run amok.
Brootal
See, that's just the problem. It takes lawyers and pedantic linguaphiles like you to "not get it."
For the average person, "copying" a DVD would imply being able to *play* the copy.
Brootal