I think the artists SHOULD get paid. That's why I was willing to pay 10 cents to the ARTIST. However, I assumed buying the music directly from the artist's website. I guess if I factored in buying from a third party who would also have to pay for bandwidth and make a profit, I'd go as high as 25 cents per song.
I'm more than happy to buy non-DRMed CDs for 12 bucks or less considering the costs involved. Let's imagine I buy a couple 12 CDs from Amazon (so I get the "free" shipping). Fedex gets a cut to deliver it to me. Amazon gets a cut. The trucking service that drove it to Amazon gets a cut. The distributor gets a cut. The label gets a cut. The manufacturer of the CD gets a cut. The manufacture of the cover gets a cut. The person who printed the artwork gets a cut. The person who created the artwork gets a cut. The band gets a cut (if they're lucky). The producer gets a cut. When you add all that up, 12 bucks seems pretty cheap.
HOWEVER, once you start selling online nearly all those costs disappear. That's why I think 10 cents directly to the artist is more than fair. If an artist sells 100,000 copies of their 12 song "album" for 10 cents per song, that's a nice take of $120,000, which doesn't include the money they make on touring, selling t-shirts, etc. And if they sell a million of their "albums" at 10 cents a song, that's a take of $1,200,000. And that's pretty damn good money.
"Music is fairly cheap to produce, expensive to market. Ever wonder where those "megahits" come from?"
Thanks for proving my point. You admit that the only real cost with music is marketing. However, I never ever buy hit music. Thus, why should I pay for marketing for products I never buy?!
"incredibly disproportionate" in what regard? Is the music too expensive or is the show?!
Music is generally pretty cheap to make. Nowadays you don't need expensive studios or musicians, nearly everything is done with pro-track. And let's face it; the artists rarely ever get paid unless they can stretch a career out for several years. That's why I think a dollar is too much. I'd probably pay 10 cents a song if it was in a lossless format.
However, TVs shows have executive producers, producers, directors, gaffers, camera people, HIGHLY paid actors, writers, etc. All who are unionized and all who get paid a damn lot. Hit shows are incredibly expensive to make. Even a successful shows like Friends never made a profit in primetime, NBC will make its profit in reruns and DVD sales. Considering all that I consider two bucks a barging, but not at the ridiculously low resolution Apple is selling them for.
Tycho called this one already. When Penny Arcade's last Jack Thompson comic came out Tycho wrote the following:
"Of course, he's not serious. Machination is too glorified a word for what he's doing. Ruse would make it seem debonair. He's essentially holding money hostage from charity, and if someone did make it, even as a joke, he would say that it didn't conform to his "design." This sort of thing is usually called a shell-game."
I don't really see how a new IM program could succeed. If everyone you know uses AIM (for example) not only would you have to change to the new system, all your friends and family would have to change too. That's not likely to happen for most users.
Maybe Google realizes this and simply wants to buy a successful IM system outright.
Imagine if an artist demanded a part of the advertising dollars from Spin magazine every time his name was mentioned in the zine. That'd be ludicrous. But how is this any different?
The music industry is just incredibly greedy. Even sites who are helping to promote have to pay to promote. It even turned away Gates' billions and his offer to sell music.
Oh god yes. Can you imagine being able to back up 50 gigs onto a disc?! That'd be fucking awesome! I wonder how much blanks will cost. Considering Sony probably too much.
Gates wants to cut cost on the Xbox 360 so he chose not to include a Blue-Ray disc drive. But he still wants it to play content off Blue-Ray discs, so he asks his biggest gaming console competitor to let it stream content off Blue-Ray discs, without him paying of any royalties. Not at all surprisingly Sony tells him to fuck off. Gates gets pissed.
Exactly what planet did Gates come from?! Why would Sony EVER help Microsoft create a console that's cheaper to make?! Why would the movie industry EVER allow HD content to stream across a network MERELY because Gates wants to save a few bucks on his console?! Is this man fucking crazy?!
China will have NO part of the decision as it owns NONE of the content. The decision will be made soley by the movie studios.
Imagine if China made a HD player and disc and released it to the public. What exactly would be on those discs without Hollywood's permission?! Exactly nothing.
That is PURE bullshit for one simple reason: Broadcasters ARE currently
delivering "high-value" content in HD format "over the air"!!!! You can't say
that broadcasters won't do something unless we take action, WHEN THEY ARE
FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW!!!
That bullshit lie is just a ploy to get broadcast flags in place to make sure we
have absolutely no fair use rights left.
Troll?! I'm not criticizing Slashdot for the lack of good news. It's certainly not Slashdot's fault most of the world's governments are anti-consumer rights!
Universal's movies WERE expensive. But the costs have long since been recouped through the theatrical release, through the DVD release, and through the televised released. Stop trying to pretend that every movie loses money as it's complete bullshit!
Microsoft did not drop negotiations with the music industry because the cost was too high. Microsoft has so far lost 4 billion dollars on the Xbox to compete with Sony. Four billion dollars down the drain merely because it doesn't want Sony winning our living rooms. Clearly Microsoft is willing to spend money in order to compete.
So it's my guess that Microsoft dropped out because it realized that Apple doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell remaining in the music industry. Thus, why spend money competing against Apple when it's only a matter of time before Apple is forced out.
Does it really make sense to think that Microsoft would let Apple win the online music wars?! No friggin' way. Microsoft fights the most petty battles tooth and nail. It's just that Microsoft has figured out what Apple hasn't: The music industry does not want third party online services! See my prior post to see why. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164255&cid=137 16227
Maybe I'm just a Raimi whore, but I loved it. I personally thought that Kirsten Dunst was wrong for the role of a teenager as she looks about 28. And in Spiderman II she looked about 32. And couldn't they have found a real redhead for the role?
There are three good reasons why the music industry wants third party online services to fail.
First, imagine if a service such as iTunes became very successful. For example, 50% or more of all music sold was sold via iTunes. Now imagine you're a successful musician and it's time to resign to a label. Do you sign or do you get a marketer and simply sell your tunes on iTunes and keep the vast majority of the profits for yourself? If any third party online service succeeded, the current music industry would be toast.
Second, the music industry has historically cooked the books, i.e., over reported sales of some artists to hype them or under-reported sales of successful artists to screw them out of royalties. With a third party keeping precise track of every song being sold the music industry loses control. Suddenly they can't "fix" the charts and artists are demanding their fair share. They don't want that.
The third reason is that they want ALL profits for themselves. Why should Apple or Microsoft get some of the profits when the music industry can get it all? Let's face it, they are a monopoly. E.g., you can only legally buy a System of a Down CD from Sony, and no one else.
This refusal to negotiation fair rates with third parties certainly shows that the music industry is doing pretty well. If they were as bad off as they claim they would more willing to open new markets and new models.
Sam Raimi directed the near perfect Spiderman movies. Christopher Nolan directed the fabulous Batman Begins. Kevin Spacey staring in Superman Returns. And now Peter Jackson is doing Halo! What the fuck is going on? Why is it suddenly COOL to make great superhero movies?! Are that many middle-aged men living in their parents' basements to support such an art form?!
Slashdot Mirror
It appears he's even launched a DNS attack against Penny Arcade's server! He's brought it to its knees. That bastard!
I think the artists SHOULD get paid. That's why I was willing to pay 10 cents to the ARTIST. However, I assumed buying the music directly from the artist's website. I guess if I factored in buying from a third party who would also have to pay for bandwidth and make a profit, I'd go as high as 25 cents per song.
I'm more than happy to buy non-DRMed CDs for 12 bucks or less considering the costs involved. Let's imagine I buy a couple 12 CDs from Amazon (so I get the "free" shipping). Fedex gets a cut to deliver it to me. Amazon gets a cut. The trucking service that drove it to Amazon gets a cut. The distributor gets a cut. The label gets a cut. The manufacturer of the CD gets a cut. The manufacture of the cover gets a cut. The person who printed the artwork gets a cut. The person who created the artwork gets a cut. The band gets a cut (if they're lucky). The producer gets a cut. When you add all that up, 12 bucks seems pretty cheap.
HOWEVER, once you start selling online nearly all those costs disappear. That's why I think 10 cents directly to the artist is more than fair. If an artist sells 100,000 copies of their 12 song "album" for 10 cents per song, that's a nice take of $120,000, which doesn't include the money they make on touring, selling t-shirts, etc. And if they sell a million of their "albums" at 10 cents a song, that's a take of $1,200,000. And that's pretty damn good money.
"Music is fairly cheap to produce, expensive to market. Ever wonder where those "megahits" come from?"
Thanks for proving my point. You admit that the only real cost with music is marketing. However, I never ever buy hit music. Thus, why should I pay for marketing for products I never buy?!
"incredibly disproportionate" in what regard? Is the music too expensive or is the show?!
Music is generally pretty cheap to make. Nowadays you don't need expensive studios or musicians, nearly everything is done with pro-track. And let's face it; the artists rarely ever get paid unless they can stretch a career out for several years. That's why I think a dollar is too much. I'd probably pay 10 cents a song if it was in a lossless format.
However, TVs shows have executive producers, producers, directors, gaffers, camera people, HIGHLY paid actors, writers, etc. All who are unionized and all who get paid a damn lot. Hit shows are incredibly expensive to make. Even a successful shows like Friends never made a profit in primetime, NBC will make its profit in reruns and DVD sales. Considering all that I consider two bucks a barging, but not at the ridiculously low resolution Apple is selling them for.
Tycho called this one already. When Penny Arcade's last Jack Thompson comic came out Tycho wrote the following:
- 14
"Of course, he's not serious. Machination is too glorified a word for what he's doing. Ruse would make it seem debonair. He's essentially holding money hostage from charity, and if someone did make it, even as a joke, he would say that it didn't conform to his "design." This sort of thing is usually called a shell-game."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php?date=2005-10
What fucking planet do you live on?! Portable video players have been around for years!
I don't really see how a new IM program could succeed. If everyone you know uses AIM (for example) not only would you have to change to the new system, all your friends and family would have to change too. That's not likely to happen for most users.
Maybe Google realizes this and simply wants to buy a successful IM system outright.
"Never get between an American and his TV set." If Congress passes this bill, there will be hell to pay.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/perso naltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html
http://progressive.org/mag_mc100405
Imagine if an artist demanded a part of the advertising dollars from Spin magazine every time his name was mentioned in the zine. That'd be ludicrous. But how is this any different?
m usic_licensing_talks/
p le_decapitation/
The music industry is just incredibly greedy. Even sites who are helping to promote have to pay to promote. It even turned away Gates' billions and his offer to sell music.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/04/ms_quits_
Even Apple who admittedly looses money on iTunes will have to pay profits from its iPods.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/27/warner_ap
Do you know what this means?! The music industry is even greedier than Microsoft!
Oh god yes. Can you imagine being able to back up 50 gigs onto a disc?! That'd be fucking awesome! I wonder how much blanks will cost. Considering Sony probably too much.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Americans will fall in love with Bollywood movies! Yep. Sure. You're a fucking moron!
Gates wants to cut cost on the Xbox 360 so he chose not to include a Blue-Ray disc drive. But he still wants it to play content off Blue-Ray discs, so he asks his biggest gaming console competitor to let it stream content off Blue-Ray discs, without him paying of any royalties. Not at all surprisingly Sony tells him to fuck off. Gates gets pissed.
Exactly what planet did Gates come from?! Why would Sony EVER help Microsoft create a console that's cheaper to make?! Why would the movie industry EVER allow HD content to stream across a network MERELY because Gates wants to save a few bucks on his console?! Is this man fucking crazy?!
China will have NO part of the decision as it owns NONE of the content. The decision will be made soley by the movie studios.
Imagine if China made a HD player and disc and released it to the public. What exactly would be on those discs without Hollywood's permission?! Exactly nothing.
Link to Boucher's quote: http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,67853,00.html
Rick Boucher seems pretty smart about the issues and seems to be on our side until he repeats the same industry bullshit lie, namely that "the only way that I think we are going to have high-value television programming delivered over the air in digital format is if the motion picture industry has some level of confidence that it's not going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet."
That is PURE bullshit for one simple reason: Broadcasters ARE currently delivering "high-value" content in HD format "over the air"!!!! You can't say that broadcasters won't do something unless we take action, WHEN THEY ARE FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW!!!
That bullshit lie is just a ploy to get broadcast flags in place to make sure we have absolutely no fair use rights left.
Troll?! I'm not criticizing Slashdot for the lack of good news. It's certainly not Slashdot's fault most of the world's governments are anti-consumer rights!
I'm not used to hearing good news via slashdot. What's going on? Am I still dreaming? In a coma? Are my kids OK?!
Universal's movies WERE expensive. But the costs have long since been recouped through the theatrical release, through the DVD release, and through the televised released. Stop trying to pretend that every movie loses money as it's complete bullshit!
Microsoft did not drop negotiations with the music industry because the cost was too high. Microsoft has so far lost 4 billion dollars on the Xbox to compete with Sony. Four billion dollars down the drain merely because it doesn't want Sony winning our living rooms. Clearly Microsoft is willing to spend money in order to compete.
7 16227
So it's my guess that Microsoft dropped out because it realized that Apple doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell remaining in the music industry. Thus, why spend money competing against Apple when it's only a matter of time before Apple is forced out.
Does it really make sense to think that Microsoft would let Apple win the online music wars?! No friggin' way. Microsoft fights the most petty battles tooth and nail. It's just that Microsoft has figured out what Apple hasn't: The music industry does not want third party online services! See my prior post to see why.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164255&cid=13
Maybe I'm just a Raimi whore, but I loved it. I personally thought that Kirsten Dunst was wrong for the role of a teenager as she looks about 28. And in Spiderman II she looked about 32. And couldn't they have found a real redhead for the role?
And don't forget the original Divx DVD system! That died a pretty quick death.
There are three good reasons why the music industry wants third party online services to fail.
First, imagine if a service such as iTunes became very successful. For example, 50% or more of all music sold was sold via iTunes. Now imagine you're a successful musician and it's time to resign to a label. Do you sign or do you get a marketer and simply sell your tunes on iTunes and keep the vast majority of the profits for yourself? If any third party online service succeeded, the current music industry would be toast.
Second, the music industry has historically cooked the books, i.e., over reported sales of some artists to hype them or under-reported sales of successful artists to screw them out of royalties. With a third party keeping precise track of every song being sold the music industry loses control. Suddenly they can't "fix" the charts and artists are demanding their fair share. They don't want that.
The third reason is that they want ALL profits for themselves. Why should Apple or Microsoft get some of the profits when the music industry can get it all? Let's face it, they are a monopoly. E.g., you can only legally buy a System of a Down CD from Sony, and no one else.
This refusal to negotiation fair rates with third parties certainly shows that the music industry is doing pretty well. If they were as bad off as they claim they would more willing to open new markets and new models.
You nailed that one. Thanks!
Sam Raimi directed the near perfect Spiderman movies. Christopher Nolan directed the fabulous Batman Begins. Kevin Spacey staring in Superman Returns. And now Peter Jackson is doing Halo! What the fuck is going on? Why is it suddenly COOL to make great superhero movies?! Are that many middle-aged men living in their parents' basements to support such an art form?!