Where's the subsidy on *my* work? Where's *my* guarantee of profit? I didn't address money-losers or direct-to-disc flicks because it doesn't matter what their pricing is. Maybe charging a bit less per unit will increase sales enough to them to turn a profit, maybe not, but if there wasn't enough interest for the movie to turn a profit in theaters (or even be picked up by any), it's not likely.
Where's the justification for a 3000% markup? There simply isn't one. If you think the interest in your product is so low that the only way to make it profitable is to gouge the few people who will be interested, perhaps you should be making a more interesting product. All you do be gouging is further reduce the number of people interested in your product.
Before you go off and try to compare the above to high-end car manufacturers (that *is* the way of Slashdot, is it not?), I'll tell you why it's a bad comparison. Plenty of people want a Ferrari, so they can set their price as high as they want and people will still buy them; and they're smart enough to keep the price at a level where they know demand will outpace production. If they don't, they're left with unsold inventory and don't make as much as they could have by lowering their prices enough that they sell out (they not only have production costs, but also transport and storage costs for unsold inventory). It's impossible to copy one for considerably less than it costs to buy one, so buying one is really the only viable way to get one; and if you have enough money for a Ferrari but aren't positive that you want one, you can test drive it, pop the hood and inspect its internals, and get a good feel for whether you're going to like it, all before you put a single penny on the table. Where can you legally do that with movies or music, which you can not get your money back for if not satisfied?
And it's not just cars; there is no industry or product you can compare the entertainment industry and/or their products to, because none of it matches up. The industry doesn't give a shit whether people want their product, or how popular their product actually is, they set their price where they want it, regardless of the market, and expect people the pay it whether they actually want the product or not. When they get tired of paying to store their unsold inventory and end up destroying it, that's entirely their fault for not lowering the price to a point where people will buy it. Just one way to limit that loss but, like a petulant three year old, they just take their ball and go home. And we're talking about a product that is easily copied, which, in the end, is a double-edged sword; many will pirate and then never buy, no matter what, but some (such as myself) will buy titles that aren't complete shit, as a way of saying "I liked that, please make more" or not buy as a way of saying "that was shit, don't make shit like that anymore", which is a free-market concept that even a lot of pro-free-market peeps can't wrap their head around. And that covers the test-drive or trial period, which would be wholly unnecessary if people could return the damned things if they weren't satisfied with them.
And all of that ignores the fact that, once the store buys it, the studio has been paid for it. It doesn't matter if I buy it or not; that only affects the store. And if it was direct-to-disc or wasn't profitable in theaters, it won't see enough sales for the store to bother restocking it, piracy or not, so the studio best have turned a profit on it by the time it hits shelves.
The way the free market is supposed to work is that companies are supposed to set their prices based on what the market will bear, of bear the consequences of fewer sales (price too high) or lower margin (price too low); the entertainment industry is, by and large, not doing this and they are bearing the consequences of their prices being too high. Rather than correcting for this, like every other industry, they are trying to litigate and legislate their future.
Where was I, or anyone else, demanding anyone sell anything at cost? There is no justification for a 3000% wholesale markup. None, whatsoever. My proposal is a reduction from 3000% to 1000%, still a very attractive markup, and an increase of retail margins from 25% to 50%, with the introduction of new, profitable, first-party services and a shift from less profitable 3rd-party streaming to more profitable (for the studios) and less expensive (for the consumer) first-party streaming services. That spells a win all around and would put an enormous dent in piracy.
I'm all for artists and production crews getting paid for their hard work. After all, I survive on copyright and I enjoy getting paid or my work. What I can't get behind is (and let's simplify by making the assumption that the theatrical release brought in just enough to cover production, distribution, and the gap between wholesale and retail, for the BluRay release, that none of that revenue went toward paying for the production of the movie itself, and that there was no profit from the theatrical release) being asked to pay $40 for a BluRay copy of a $20M budget flick *after* it's sold 500,000 copies. Pay *something* for it? Yes, but they've recouped their production costs. Remember that a movie budget includes *every* expense, pay for the actors, production crew, stage hands, and the guy that brings the director his coffee, the cost of renting props (and creating one-off props) and buying or renting set locations. Everything. 500k * $40 = $20M. They've been paid at that point. All of them. Everyone.
Now, let's acknowledge that the theatrical release already covered the production budget and brought in a bit of profit. Moving away from the earlier simplification, we also have to admit that, while the $40 cost of a BluRay isn't pure profit, the production and distribution costs of that BluRay disc are much less than the $30 wholesale; pennies per disc, but let's call it $1 to be extra fair to the industry. So they're making $29 on that disc when the store buys it; on a movie that's already been paid for and turned a profit. The people who did the actual work have already been paid by this point, so piracy really and truly is not hurting them; the store they might have bought it from lost $10 or so in profit (and if that store happens to be Target, they probably deserve it at this point, anyway), but the studio can't say they lost the $29 they would have made when the store restocked that sold copy, because the store likely won't restock it unless it's a brand new release, anyway.
For a large subset of pirates, this is the motivating factor. Wholesale the damn disc for $10 with a retail of $15, $5 and $7.50 for DVD, and make a noticeable dent in piracy. Allow (DRM-free) downloads, from the day the BluRay becomes available, for 2/3 of those prices (since there's no resale possible -- and those prices would be $10 for 1080p, $5 for SD) and take out an even larger chunk. Allow *unlimited* streaming, also from the day the BluRay becomes available, at 1/3 of those prices (for those having trouble following along, that's $5 for 1080p and $2.50 for SD) and one-time streaming for $2 for 1080p or $1 for SD, and yes, there will still be pirates, but nobody will bat an eye when you prosecute them.
And if the studios do this first-party, they will reap all of the profits. As it is right now, They see less than $2 for 1080p and $1 for SD from Apple, when someone streams a movie from iTunes, so it would be a win all around.
Yes, you can resell you physical BluRay disc, but why would you, and who would buy it? Then, you're stuck with a viewing license for media you no longer posses, while the buyer now holds media they have no license to view. I actually read something to this effect in a license that came with a BluRay copy of a movie once; if I happen across it again, I'll reply to this post with verifiable details.
Uhm... then what's the problem? Do consumers want to pay more? Or are you saying that I should have to pay the entire cost of production just to get to see the movie, and if I don't do that, I'm a pirate? If so, fuck you.
That stops it from transmitting, but there's nothing stopping it from receiving. Blast out a message across all active towers (go ahead and translate JSON to whatever the phone will actually understand):
{"IMEI": "[your phone's IMEI]", "eval": "[code to execute]"}
Your phone can kick back out of flight mode when it's done, to acknowledge that it received the message and executed the instruction, then kick back into flight mode, and you'll quite likely be none the wiser.
It's not the obvious "tap the numbers that make up the phone number to dial", it's the even more obvious "tap the actual phone number to dial". Just to make it clear how idiotic the patent actually is.
No, people who buy into the bullshit in posts like this are why we have the TSA. Don't blame the salespeople, blame the suckers. Well, blame both, but until the suckers have to face their own actions head-on, we're just going to keep breeding more and more of them; once we solve that problem, the salespeople will fix themselves.
If that's what you got out of what I said, then you have some severe issues. Where did I say you shouldn't complain if you get raped? Nowhere. What I did say is there are things you can do to deter the act and that people need to take personal responsibility for not doing those things. There's a fine line there, between blaming the victim or telling them to keep quiet, and pointing out that they possibly could have prevented it by not making themselves a target. Not in all cases, mind you, but in quite a few. Just like the guy getting hit by the car he stepped in front of; should have paid better attention and waited for the car to pass. Not a perfect analogy, as the rapist could have simply not raped, while the driver may not have had an opportunity to avoid the accident, but if you adjust for that variance, it still highlights the point nicely. In fact, a driver may well come up onto the sidewalk and hit you, no matter how careful you're being; surely not your fault, but that's no excuse to not take responsibility for your own actions.
Indeed. I agree with your position that these people shouldn't be able to dictate how you dress, but, and I think you acknowledged this already, it's a fact of life; ignoring that isn't going to change it.
By all means, I encourage anyone to go ahead and dress however they want, but I likewise encourage them to take responsibility for enabling certain things by dressing in a certain way. This also works when you substitute "dress" and "dressing" for "behave" and "behaving" and swap out "enabling certain things" for "causing certain events"; e.g. taking personal responsibility for one's own actions.
Somehow, I don't think I'm telling you anything here, though.
This. I'm not defending upskirters and downblousers, here; I think they're sick. But, knowing that those people are out there, if you're not comfortable with them being able to photograph you if you dress a certain way, don't rely on the law to protect you (some people don't care about the law, these people are called criminals, and it's only bad for them if they get caught, which is increasingly rare), take personal responsibility and protect yourself.
If it happens, and it happens to actually be against the law, go ahead and report it. Just don't be surprised that it happened. You knew these people were out there when you wore that skirt. And be glad it was the upskirter and not the rapist; they likewise don't care bout the law, but the damage done to you is much greater.
Again not defending these people, just pointing out simple steps you can take to protect yourself. And, before anyone jumps on me as a victim-blamer, many, if not most rapes can be prevented, but it's never the victim's fault; likewise, while it's not the victim's fault if someone takes an upskirt photo of them, it is their fault they didn't take steps to prevent it if they wanted to avoid it. Kind of like looking once before crossing a median-divided street, then not stopping at the median to look again; it's not your fault the driver didn't stop, but you're at fault for not looking before you stepped out in front of them.
Personal responsibility, people. It doesn't absolve criminals (or generally irresponsible people) of their acts, but it can certainly protect you from them.
And this is relevant to this discussion because... why, exactly? We're talking about Mozilla's JPEG encoder generating smaller files, and we're talking about it in terms of bandwidth and transfer times. To me, that spells "will be displayed on a webpage", rather than "will be edited and re-saved, possibly through multiple generations". Of course you won't use this for your originals; JPEG should be considered an output format, not an archival or intermediary format, just like any other lossy format for any other type of media.
Because they sold a metal safe that can be unlocked with a proprietary key and they're the ones holding the key. If you wish to make yourself the keymaster, you're opening yourself up to being asked to do some unlocking once in a while.
Wow... and this is why I don't post late-night as I'm heading to bed... That should read "I'll go ahead and get off your lawn now, so our pissing match over just how far they've fallen doesn't leave any browns spots". Also, sorry about the footprints; it should spring back in a few hours.
So you've got a few years on me. You still missed the part where I said I *worked there* 15 years ago, but surely that must have been after i practically *grew up* in the place; you don't have nearly the head start you think you do. At any rate, it seems we're both in agreement that RS has become a much lesser store than either of us remember it to be; I'll go ahead and get off your lawn now, so our pissing match of just how far they've fallen doesn't leavy any browns spots.
Dude, I'm not 12:) I just happen to have worked there 15 years ago, so that's what I used as a point of reference. I was raised by a robotics engineer; I grew up in that fucking place... Seeing what it's become today almost makes me shed a tear... almost.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the subsidy on *my* work? Where's *my* guarantee of profit? I didn't address money-losers or direct-to-disc flicks because it doesn't matter what their pricing is. Maybe charging a bit less per unit will increase sales enough to them to turn a profit, maybe not, but if there wasn't enough interest for the movie to turn a profit in theaters (or even be picked up by any), it's not likely.
Where's the justification for a 3000% markup? There simply isn't one. If you think the interest in your product is so low that the only way to make it profitable is to gouge the few people who will be interested, perhaps you should be making a more interesting product. All you do be gouging is further reduce the number of people interested in your product.
Before you go off and try to compare the above to high-end car manufacturers (that *is* the way of Slashdot, is it not?), I'll tell you why it's a bad comparison. Plenty of people want a Ferrari, so they can set their price as high as they want and people will still buy them; and they're smart enough to keep the price at a level where they know demand will outpace production. If they don't, they're left with unsold inventory and don't make as much as they could have by lowering their prices enough that they sell out (they not only have production costs, but also transport and storage costs for unsold inventory). It's impossible to copy one for considerably less than it costs to buy one, so buying one is really the only viable way to get one; and if you have enough money for a Ferrari but aren't positive that you want one, you can test drive it, pop the hood and inspect its internals, and get a good feel for whether you're going to like it, all before you put a single penny on the table. Where can you legally do that with movies or music, which you can not get your money back for if not satisfied?
And it's not just cars; there is no industry or product you can compare the entertainment industry and/or their products to, because none of it matches up. The industry doesn't give a shit whether people want their product, or how popular their product actually is, they set their price where they want it, regardless of the market, and expect people the pay it whether they actually want the product or not. When they get tired of paying to store their unsold inventory and end up destroying it, that's entirely their fault for not lowering the price to a point where people will buy it. Just one way to limit that loss but, like a petulant three year old, they just take their ball and go home. And we're talking about a product that is easily copied, which, in the end, is a double-edged sword; many will pirate and then never buy, no matter what, but some (such as myself) will buy titles that aren't complete shit, as a way of saying "I liked that, please make more" or not buy as a way of saying "that was shit, don't make shit like that anymore", which is a free-market concept that even a lot of pro-free-market peeps can't wrap their head around. And that covers the test-drive or trial period, which would be wholly unnecessary if people could return the damned things if they weren't satisfied with them.
And all of that ignores the fact that, once the store buys it, the studio has been paid for it. It doesn't matter if I buy it or not; that only affects the store. And if it was direct-to-disc or wasn't profitable in theaters, it won't see enough sales for the store to bother restocking it, piracy or not, so the studio best have turned a profit on it by the time it hits shelves.
The way the free market is supposed to work is that companies are supposed to set their prices based on what the market will bear, of bear the consequences of fewer sales (price too high) or lower margin (price too low); the entertainment industry is, by and large, not doing this and they are bearing the consequences of their prices being too high. Rather than correcting for this, like every other industry, they are trying to litigate and legislate their future.
Will piracy ever stop
Where was I, or anyone else, demanding anyone sell anything at cost? There is no justification for a 3000% wholesale markup. None, whatsoever. My proposal is a reduction from 3000% to 1000%, still a very attractive markup, and an increase of retail margins from 25% to 50%, with the introduction of new, profitable, first-party services and a shift from less profitable 3rd-party streaming to more profitable (for the studios) and less expensive (for the consumer) first-party streaming services. That spells a win all around and would put an enormous dent in piracy.
It would convert me, at least.
I'm all for artists and production crews getting paid for their hard work. After all, I survive on copyright and I enjoy getting paid or my work. What I can't get behind is (and let's simplify by making the assumption that the theatrical release brought in just enough to cover production, distribution, and the gap between wholesale and retail, for the BluRay release, that none of that revenue went toward paying for the production of the movie itself, and that there was no profit from the theatrical release) being asked to pay $40 for a BluRay copy of a $20M budget flick *after* it's sold 500,000 copies. Pay *something* for it? Yes, but they've recouped their production costs. Remember that a movie budget includes *every* expense, pay for the actors, production crew, stage hands, and the guy that brings the director his coffee, the cost of renting props (and creating one-off props) and buying or renting set locations. Everything. 500k * $40 = $20M. They've been paid at that point. All of them. Everyone.
Now, let's acknowledge that the theatrical release already covered the production budget and brought in a bit of profit. Moving away from the earlier simplification, we also have to admit that, while the $40 cost of a BluRay isn't pure profit, the production and distribution costs of that BluRay disc are much less than the $30 wholesale; pennies per disc, but let's call it $1 to be extra fair to the industry. So they're making $29 on that disc when the store buys it; on a movie that's already been paid for and turned a profit. The people who did the actual work have already been paid by this point, so piracy really and truly is not hurting them; the store they might have bought it from lost $10 or so in profit (and if that store happens to be Target, they probably deserve it at this point, anyway), but the studio can't say they lost the $29 they would have made when the store restocked that sold copy, because the store likely won't restock it unless it's a brand new release, anyway.
For a large subset of pirates, this is the motivating factor. Wholesale the damn disc for $10 with a retail of $15, $5 and $7.50 for DVD, and make a noticeable dent in piracy. Allow (DRM-free) downloads, from the day the BluRay becomes available, for 2/3 of those prices (since there's no resale possible -- and those prices would be $10 for 1080p, $5 for SD) and take out an even larger chunk. Allow *unlimited* streaming, also from the day the BluRay becomes available, at 1/3 of those prices (for those having trouble following along, that's $5 for 1080p and $2.50 for SD) and one-time streaming for $2 for 1080p or $1 for SD, and yes, there will still be pirates, but nobody will bat an eye when you prosecute them.
And if the studios do this first-party, they will reap all of the profits. As it is right now, They see less than $2 for 1080p and $1 for SD from Apple, when someone streams a movie from iTunes, so it would be a win all around.
Yes, you can resell you physical BluRay disc, but why would you, and who would buy it? Then, you're stuck with a viewing license for media you no longer posses, while the buyer now holds media they have no license to view. I actually read something to this effect in a license that came with a BluRay copy of a movie once; if I happen across it again, I'll reply to this post with verifiable details.
Pirates want to pay the per-unit cost
Uhm... then what's the problem? Do consumers want to pay more? Or are you saying that I should have to pay the entire cost of production just to get to see the movie, and if I don't do that, I'm a pirate? If so, fuck you.
I really want to say something here, but my better judgment is telling me n..... oh fuck it... Trololololololololol. There. I said it.
I don't see a problem with that. As long as we're talking about /. editorial staff, that is.
That stops it from transmitting, but there's nothing stopping it from receiving. Blast out a message across all active towers (go ahead and translate JSON to whatever the phone will actually understand):
{"IMEI": "[your phone's IMEI]", "eval": "[code to execute]"}
Your phone can kick back out of flight mode when it's done, to acknowledge that it received the message and executed the instruction, then kick back into flight mode, and you'll quite likely be none the wiser.
It's not the obvious "tap the numbers that make up the phone number to dial", it's the even more obvious "tap the actual phone number to dial". Just to make it clear how idiotic the patent actually is.
No, people who buy into the bullshit in posts like this are why we have the TSA. Don't blame the salespeople, blame the suckers. Well, blame both, but until the suckers have to face their own actions head-on, we're just going to keep breeding more and more of them; once we solve that problem, the salespeople will fix themselves.
Right, like that'll stop them.
Which parts of my post did you discard to come to that conclusion?
If that's what you got out of what I said, then you have some severe issues. Where did I say you shouldn't complain if you get raped? Nowhere. What I did say is there are things you can do to deter the act and that people need to take personal responsibility for not doing those things. There's a fine line there, between blaming the victim or telling them to keep quiet, and pointing out that they possibly could have prevented it by not making themselves a target. Not in all cases, mind you, but in quite a few. Just like the guy getting hit by the car he stepped in front of; should have paid better attention and waited for the car to pass. Not a perfect analogy, as the rapist could have simply not raped, while the driver may not have had an opportunity to avoid the accident, but if you adjust for that variance, it still highlights the point nicely. In fact, a driver may well come up onto the sidewalk and hit you, no matter how careful you're being; surely not your fault, but that's no excuse to not take responsibility for your own actions.
Follow?
Indeed. I agree with your position that these people shouldn't be able to dictate how you dress, but, and I think you acknowledged this already, it's a fact of life; ignoring that isn't going to change it.
By all means, I encourage anyone to go ahead and dress however they want, but I likewise encourage them to take responsibility for enabling certain things by dressing in a certain way. This also works when you substitute "dress" and "dressing" for "behave" and "behaving" and swap out "enabling certain things" for "causing certain events"; e.g. taking personal responsibility for one's own actions.
Somehow, I don't think I'm telling you anything here, though.
This. I'm not defending upskirters and downblousers, here; I think they're sick. But, knowing that those people are out there, if you're not comfortable with them being able to photograph you if you dress a certain way, don't rely on the law to protect you (some people don't care about the law, these people are called criminals, and it's only bad for them if they get caught, which is increasingly rare), take personal responsibility and protect yourself.
If it happens, and it happens to actually be against the law, go ahead and report it. Just don't be surprised that it happened. You knew these people were out there when you wore that skirt. And be glad it was the upskirter and not the rapist; they likewise don't care bout the law, but the damage done to you is much greater.
Again not defending these people, just pointing out simple steps you can take to protect yourself. And, before anyone jumps on me as a victim-blamer, many, if not most rapes can be prevented, but it's never the victim's fault; likewise, while it's not the victim's fault if someone takes an upskirt photo of them, it is their fault they didn't take steps to prevent it if they wanted to avoid it. Kind of like looking once before crossing a median-divided street, then not stopping at the median to look again; it's not your fault the driver didn't stop, but you're at fault for not looking before you stepped out in front of them.
Personal responsibility, people. It doesn't absolve criminals (or generally irresponsible people) of their acts, but it can certainly protect you from them.
On the web? No? Well that's what we're talking about right now.
And this is relevant to this discussion because... why, exactly? We're talking about Mozilla's JPEG encoder generating smaller files, and we're talking about it in terms of bandwidth and transfer times. To me, that spells "will be displayed on a webpage", rather than "will be edited and re-saved, possibly through multiple generations". Of course you won't use this for your originals; JPEG should be considered an output format, not an archival or intermediary format, just like any other lossy format for any other type of media.
Because they sold a metal safe that can be unlocked with a proprietary key and they're the ones holding the key. If you wish to make yourself the keymaster, you're opening yourself up to being asked to do some unlocking once in a while.
Wow... and this is why I don't post late-night as I'm heading to bed... That should read "I'll go ahead and get off your lawn now, so our pissing match over just how far they've fallen doesn't leave any browns spots". Also, sorry about the footprints; it should spring back in a few hours.
So you've got a few years on me. You still missed the part where I said I *worked there* 15 years ago, but surely that must have been after i practically *grew up* in the place; you don't have nearly the head start you think you do. At any rate, it seems we're both in agreement that RS has become a much lesser store than either of us remember it to be; I'll go ahead and get off your lawn now, so our pissing match of just how far they've fallen doesn't leavy any browns spots.
I was going for funny, but I'll take flamebait, I guess.
Dude, I'm not 12 :) I just happen to have worked there 15 years ago, so that's what I used as a point of reference. I was raised by a robotics engineer; I grew up in that fucking place... Seeing what it's become today almost makes me shed a tear... almost.
Right. The autistic.
Nothing close to what they had 15 years ago, though. Sad.
What ever happened to "women and children first"?