How's this for a solution to film piracy?
1. Forget chasing 'pirates'. This will save a lot of expensive legal bills. Cut back drastically on advertising too, as you don't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.
2. Make film (Citizen Kane 2: starring Adam Sandler or something).
3. Make a VCD cut and make unlabelled cheapo vcd's. Using the economies of scale, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies. Your margin is the difference between a bulk pressed cd and a small scale burned copy.
4. Simultaneously sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd....wait a few weeks
5. Make a nicer, longer dvd cut of the film and, again, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate dvd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.
6. Sell the dvd cut of the film online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price..... wait some more
7. Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm
8. Boxed set dvd release with extra everything.
By doing this you make money from the guys currently selling 'pirated copies' of films and money from people who can't be bothered to find a torrent of your film. The money saved on lawyers and advertising would probably pay for setting up the servers.
At stage 3 you are the sole supplier of vcd of your film, it is uneconomic to burn copies so you own the market. People may share your film over the internet but the hassle of finding a torrent and/or running P2P software is competing against the paid download (4) which is priced as low as a blank cdr.
This is simple economics. Cut back on expensive things like lawyers and advertising, then put out bargain bin priced product to soak up the sales to misers and the poor. You can still make bigger margins on the nicely packaged versions to people who want to buy them.
Oh, so it is examples you want? A relative, a civilian worker in kuwait is currently doing a 4 month stint on 12 hour days, 7 days a week and it is 120 F in the shade (if any). Over 100 straight days before you can even ask for a day off. Ok so nobody forced him into it, the point being that musicians don't have the worst of it by a long chalk and stand a chance of making some real money if they are lucky. The ordinary working stiff, if he is really good at his job, will be able to do his job until he drops dead.
Your job is whatever you can get people to pay you to do.
Re:Anti-Global-Warming movement is Bad Science
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 1
1. How old is this 'field' of climatology? How many predictions have been proved/disproved by it?
2. Climatologists proving something to their satisfaction sounds like the pope proving god's existence to his satisfaction. Vested interest.
3. Your evidence is not 100% complete. Even if it was 100% complete it would not allow you to predict the behaviour of a complex system. 4. 'Chicken Little' got published while the less credulous animals remained unfunded.
V1 was not a rocket. I am sick of people calling the V1 a rocket It had wings and breathed air into it's pulsejet engine. It was more like a cruise missile.
"Ballistic missiles don't need any fancy electronics, they are essentially unguided." I think that you are thinking of artillary shells. IIRC the inertial guidance system of an ICBM isn't easily knocked up in ones garage. Those things go from one continent to another at a fair rate of knots and climb out of and fall back into the atmosphere. Try doing that accurately without fancy electronics.
I dunno. Thatch was anti-union, Blair (while moving away from labour (union) values) seems to weathercock in whatever direction the current middle class pinko populist opinion is (while being consistantly and secretly evil in a totalitarian way). Thatch was more WYSIWYG, where Blair is more hypocritical.
If 'they have the time to make reasoned, thought out comments about what has happened the previous day', then why don't they? Or is it just the UK papers that are written by monkeys?
No. I also distinctly remember when Home Taping Was Killing Music.
If sales decrease of cd/dvd then the companies that will thrive will be those that cut their expenditure on cocaine/whores/helicopters and drop their prices to the point that people will buy their product.
Try working it backwards. If the price of all magazines and newspapers went up to $25 a copy then either sales would stay the same and the newspaper execs would be even more rich or less copies would be sold and more xeroxing and scanning would happen.
I thought that F1 was recent (post war)? Anyhoo, people have always raced cars so it is hard to say that racing caused the development of road cars since any new development will have been hurled round a track or up a hill at some point.
For bands to make enough money to survive by touring,they need to tour constantly, and doing this can be very very draining.
So no, I reject the idea that artists make their money off of tours.
You can substitute 'Office Workers' , 'Garbage Collectors' or 'Coal Miners' for 'bands' because they too need to do their job continuously, often until retirement age. And they have fewer groupies and roadies.
This takes me back a good few years to when car companies were competing over how aerodynamic their cars were. I think the audi 80 featured its drag factor in all the ads. Nowadays, of course, there is no such thing as aerodynamics and we all drive round in big boxy 4x4 glasshouses.
Guy: "Hey d00d, can you get me a copy of SomeNewFilm?"
d00d: "No problem, it will have been divxed to make it smaller, $2?"
Guy: "Sweet! Screw the quality, it will be good enough to watch. Thanks, d00d."
Marketing Man In Suit: "Hey there consumers, how would you like a nice new higher definition video-disk format that we will prevent you from copying?"
MP3 and divx show the market will happily sacrifice the existing quality standards for convenience. Higher quality at a higher price and less convenience will be a difficult sale.
I suspect that there is a bigger budget needed for the running/upkeep of traffic lights than roundabouts. Hence there is a larger fund for the traffic light manufacturers/installers/repairers to bribe officials with.
It lost me when the guy got out of bed and didn't have any bedsores, dehydration or loss of mobility. Then it got more lame. Yes, I am an old misery guts.
.....I have never seen a queue of traffic at broken traffic lights that is as long as the queue of traffic at the same junction when the lights were working. They use less power too.
Around here (UK) the craze is for replacing roundabouts with traffic lights. Or putting traffic lights ON EXISTING roundabouts, thus giving the twin benefits of waiting for no reason, then manouvering round an obstacle. Way to spend my tax, you arseholes!
1. Woot, I got broadband!
2. Must get money's worth out of broadband, I will download a linux iso!
3. Crikey, this distro isn't quite what I want, I will download another!
4. Blimey, no time for telly with all this ftping, configuring and general nerdiness.
The number of people being shot in the uk has increased since the 'gun ban'.
This does not seem to be evidence that banning guns reduces gun deaths.
Granted, the overall firearm related violence rate is much less than America, but it was like that before the gun ban.
The only people who have been disarmed are the 'shooting enthusiasts', since the firearm death rate has not come down, we can assume that they were not a risk to the public.
The murder rate in Britain was a small fraction of the murder rate in American cities BEFORE we got rid of legally held guns. If we had banned peanut butter instead of guns we would still have a lower murder rate than America. Then people could say 'Whether you like it or not, it being illegal to own peanut butter makes it less likely you'll get shot. Look at America with its high murder rate and easy availibility of peanut butter'.
The people most likely to shoot you WILL NOT OBEY the ban on guns. Banning guns DOES NOT stop guns being imported/sold. Banning guns HAS NOT decreased the likelihood of being shot.
FFS! Gun bans? Tried in Britain, didn't help gun crime problem, caused more problems than it solved, next brilliant idea please..........
Ha ha ha, you American fools!
Here in dear old England we sensibly stopped anyone having or carrying a gun (except those persons whose job it is to protect important people or property). Hooray! At a stroke we kept the guns out of the country and off the streets! Whoopee! The only drawback is that the crimnals have no problem importing and distributing guns, so the likelihood of being shot by someone robbing you is still rising. What can we possibly do to make politicians safer ? Israeli style walls around all government buildings? (The idea of doing something to help ordinary citizens defend themselves is, of course, unthinkable)
Big flying things could find it difficult to swoop through a forest, true, but what about grassland? Big open spaces support large predators, some of which have large territories which they patrol. Surely there is an advantage in being able to cover a large area and having a better vantage point? Why haven't falcons scaled up to eat bigger prey?
Slashdot Mirror
How's this for a solution to film piracy? 1. Forget chasing 'pirates'. This will save a lot of expensive legal bills. Cut back drastically on advertising too, as you don't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week. 2. Make film (Citizen Kane 2: starring Adam Sandler or something). 3. Make a VCD cut and make unlabelled cheapo vcd's. Using the economies of scale, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies. Your margin is the difference between a bulk pressed cd and a small scale burned copy. 4. Simultaneously sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd. ...wait a few weeks
5. Make a nicer, longer dvd cut of the film and, again, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate dvd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.
6. Sell the dvd cut of the film online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price. .... wait some more
7. Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm
8. Boxed set dvd release with extra everything.
By doing this you make money from the guys currently selling 'pirated copies' of films and money from people who can't be bothered to find a torrent of your film. The money saved on lawyers and advertising would probably pay for setting up the servers.
At stage 3 you are the sole supplier of vcd of your film, it is uneconomic to burn copies so you own the market. People may share your film over the internet but the hassle of finding a torrent and/or running P2P software is competing against the paid download (4) which is priced as low as a blank cdr.
This is simple economics. Cut back on expensive things like lawyers and advertising, then put out bargain bin priced product to soak up the sales to misers and the poor. You can still make bigger margins on the nicely packaged versions to people who want to buy them.
Oh, so it is examples you want? A relative, a civilian worker in kuwait is currently doing a 4 month stint on 12 hour days, 7 days a week and it is 120 F in the shade (if any). Over 100 straight days before you can even ask for a day off.
Ok so nobody forced him into it, the point being that musicians don't have the worst of it by a long chalk and stand a chance of making some real money if they are lucky. The ordinary working stiff, if he is really good at his job, will be able to do his job until he drops dead.
Your job is whatever you can get people to pay you to do.
1. How old is this 'field' of climatology? How many predictions have been proved/disproved by it?
2. Climatologists proving something to their satisfaction sounds like the pope proving god's existence to his satisfaction. Vested interest.
3. Your evidence is not 100% complete. Even if it was 100% complete it would not allow you to predict the behaviour of a complex system.
4. 'Chicken Little' got published while the less credulous animals remained unfunded.
V1 was not a rocket.
I am sick of people calling the V1 a rocket
It had wings and breathed air into it's pulsejet engine.
It was more like a cruise missile.
"Ballistic missiles don't need any fancy electronics, they are essentially unguided."
I think that you are thinking of artillary shells.
IIRC the inertial guidance system of an ICBM isn't easily knocked up in ones garage. Those things go from one continent to another at a fair rate of knots and climb out of and fall back into the atmosphere. Try doing that accurately without fancy electronics.
I dunno. Thatch was anti-union, Blair (while moving away from labour (union) values) seems to weathercock in whatever direction the current middle class pinko populist opinion is (while being consistantly and secretly evil in a totalitarian way). Thatch was more WYSIWYG, where Blair is more hypocritical.
............ and they will be replaced by other companies with lower overheads.
If 'they have the time to make reasoned, thought out comments about what has happened the previous day', then why don't they? Or is it just the UK papers that are written by monkeys?
No. I also distinctly remember when Home Taping Was Killing Music.
If sales decrease of cd/dvd then the companies that will thrive will be those that cut their expenditure on cocaine/whores/helicopters and drop their prices to the point that people will buy their product.
Try working it backwards. If the price of all magazines and newspapers went up to $25 a copy then either sales would stay the same and the newspaper execs would be even more rich or less copies would be sold and more xeroxing and scanning would happen.
I thought that F1 was recent (post war)?
Anyhoo, people have always raced cars so it is hard to say that racing caused the development of road cars since any new development will have been hurled round a track or up a hill at some point.
You can substitute 'Office Workers' , 'Garbage Collectors' or 'Coal Miners' for 'bands' because they too need to do their job continuously, often until retirement age. And they have fewer groupies and roadies.
This takes me back a good few years to when car companies were competing over how aerodynamic their cars were. I think the audi 80 featured its drag factor in all the ads. Nowadays, of course, there is no such thing as aerodynamics and we all drive round in big boxy 4x4 glasshouses.
Don't those things (except maybe variable valve timing) pre-date F1?
Guy: "Hey d00d, can you get me a copy of SomeNewFilm?"
d00d: "No problem, it will have been divxed to make it smaller, $2?"
Guy: "Sweet! Screw the quality, it will be good enough to watch. Thanks, d00d."
Marketing Man In Suit: "Hey there consumers, how would you like a nice new higher definition video-disk format that we will prevent you from copying?"
MP3 and divx show the market will happily sacrifice the existing quality standards for convenience. Higher quality at a higher price and less convenience will be a difficult sale.
I suspect that there is a bigger budget needed for the running/upkeep of traffic lights than roundabouts. Hence there is a larger fund for the traffic light manufacturers/installers/repairers to bribe officials with.
It lost me when the guy got out of bed and didn't have any bedsores, dehydration or loss of mobility. Then it got more lame. Yes, I am an old misery guts.
.....I have never seen a queue of traffic at broken traffic lights that is as long as the queue of traffic at the same junction when the lights were working. They use less power too.
Around here (UK) the craze is for replacing roundabouts with traffic lights. Or putting traffic lights ON EXISTING roundabouts, thus giving the twin benefits of waiting for no reason, then manouvering round an obstacle. Way to spend my tax, you arseholes!
1. Woot, I got broadband!
2. Must get money's worth out of broadband, I will download a linux iso!
3. Crikey, this distro isn't quite what I want, I will download another!
4. Blimey, no time for telly with all this ftping, configuring and general nerdiness.
....... to cease functioning after reproduction is not possible.
I am trying to run a vascectomy clinic here, you insensitive clod!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22 /ixhome.html
The number of people being shot in the uk has increased since the 'gun ban'.
This does not seem to be evidence that banning guns reduces gun deaths.
Granted, the overall firearm related violence rate is much less than America, but it was like that before the gun ban.
The only people who have been disarmed are the 'shooting enthusiasts', since the firearm death rate has not come down, we can assume that they were not a risk to the public.
The murder rate in Britain was a small fraction of the murder rate in American cities BEFORE we got rid of legally held guns.
If we had banned peanut butter instead of guns we would still have a lower murder rate than America. Then people could say 'Whether you like it or not, it being illegal to own peanut butter makes it less likely you'll get shot. Look at America with its high murder rate and easy availibility of peanut butter'.
The people most likely to shoot you WILL NOT OBEY the ban on guns.
Banning guns DOES NOT stop guns being imported/sold.
Banning guns HAS NOT decreased the likelihood of being shot.
FFS! Gun bans? Tried in Britain, didn't help gun crime problem, caused more problems than it solved, next brilliant idea please..........
Ha ha ha, you American fools!
Here in dear old England we sensibly stopped anyone having or carrying a gun (except those persons whose job it is to protect important people or property).
Hooray! At a stroke we kept the guns out of the country and off the streets! Whoopee!
The only drawback is that the crimnals have no problem importing and distributing guns, so the likelihood of being shot by someone robbing you is still rising. What can we possibly do to make politicians safer ? Israeli style walls around all government buildings?
(The idea of doing something to help ordinary citizens defend themselves is, of course, unthinkable)
Big flying things could find it difficult to swoop through a forest, true, but what about grassland? Big open spaces support large predators, some of which have large territories which they patrol. Surely there is an advantage in being able to cover a large area and having a better vantage point? Why haven't falcons scaled up to eat bigger prey?