Generation D is for Disruption
by PaleFire on 27/10/10 at 12:32 am
Gene Simmons: Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars
Kiss bassist Gene Simmons announced he is fighting back against the “popcorn farts” – that would be Anonymous – for having launched Operation Payback. Anonymous, with its latest operation, has declared war against the media giants. But the content czars are not going to surrender. In a panel on building successful brands at MIP2010 Gene "the tongue" Simmons endorsed an aggressive stance against copyright infringement: “Make sure your brand is protected…Make sure there are no incursions. Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars. Don’t let anybody cross that line.” Surprisingly (shocker, I know), Gene Simmons’ Web sites (GeneSimmons.com and SimmonsRecords.com), toppled under a DDoS attack the very next day.
You gotta admit: It’s a heck of an enterprise to take on the media – but Anonymous did.
Last month saw Web sites falling one after another as the hactivist aesthetic was played out. The justification was simple: entertainment companies are cracking the lawsuit whip *not* to protect their intellectual property (which actually belongs to the artist), but rather, to exploit people with forced out-of-court settlements. It appears that the media concerns don’t intend to share the money from this exploitation with the artists either – entertainment industries are not interested in stopping piracy, but exploiting it. Curiously, the porn industry is leading the anti-piracy efforts and quickly got on the waitlist of designated targets.
A recap of the issues can be found here and here. Meanwhile, some people praised Anonymous for their hacktivist efforts, while others condemned it, claiming that "stealing" other people’s property is unacceptable. But is making a copy theft – or something else – and has the legal system caught up with the implications of teh interwebs – and Anonymous?
At this point, knee deep in the Internet, bytes coming out of our ears, and armed with gadgets, we need to acknowledge the impossibility of protecting property online and understand that while content can be (and will be) stolen, creativity cannot. But that’s not the concern of the entertainment companies, it is the bottom dollar that counts.
The obsession with copyright is the residue of the semi-expiring print era that has been dominating society for the past several centuries. Let’s remember that the concept of “copyright” and “author” emerged with the invention of the movable type which later became the printing press. It would be a safe bet that the novel was the genre that legitimized the “author.” Maurice Couturier (1991) explains that in the 18th century, readers were too close to the oral era where the storyteller was often both the author and the narrator of the story. So why would the novelist to sign his work when it was supposed to be written by a character?
As print culture matured with the sense of ownership that copyright legitimizes, the practice of anonymous publication eventually faded away and the “author” was born. When the good folks in the 15th-16th century were writing manuscripts, intellectual property was the last thing on their minds. But I digress… The moral of the story is that, change is happening, whether we like it or not. And the “popcorn farts” have raised the flag… The question now is, how will the entertainment industries respond without alienating their audience? To put things in perspective, let me mention that authors have been meddling with these issues in their own way by experimenting with giving away content, much to the dismay of their publishers.
William Mitchell, published his book City of Bits with MIT Press in 1995, and since the subject-matter of the book primarily dealt with the digital revolution, he decided to provide a free online access to the full text. He was confronted with skepticism by MIT Press who told him that this decision would weaken the sales of the printed book. City of Bits’ Web site had a link to the online order form that provided the reader with the option of choosing either version.
Surprisingly, although the Web site offered a free version of the full text, the online version stimulated the bookstore and the mail-order sales rather than weakening them. Mitchell explains this curious outcome by suggesting that the hardback and online versions added value to the text in different and complementary fashions, so the readers of the Web version were not necessarily potential customers for the hardback.
In 2001, Douglas Rushkoff made a similar attempt with his novel, Exit Strategy, published previously in England under the name Bull, in which the characters are caught up in the dot.com bubble – which bust in 2001. Experimenting with the idea of an open-source novel (which, I argue, had failed to meet the criteria of “open-source,” although, admittedly, the project was an intriguing experiment in and of itself), Rushkoff posted the novel online and asked his readers to annotate the manuscript assuming the role of an anthropologist under the premise that the entire text was written in present day, but then hidden online, only to be discovered 200 years from now.
Traditional publishers – according to Rushkoff - could not understand his willingness to devalue his “copyright” by posting it online—for free.
Other voices of skepticism viewed Rushkoff’s project as an “online scam” and even the journalists who came to interview him could not see it as anything but a covert business plan, suspecting that there must be a catch. Ultimately, no traditional US publisher dared to make an offer on a book that was slated to be released online, for free, before it was released in print. Yahoo Internet Life agreed to host the project while a small publisher, Soft Skull, agreed to publish the resulting novel. Rushkoff donated all of the profits from the sale of the book to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Software Foundation. True, this is not PIRACY. But Some authors are giving away their content for free, which demonstrates that when users obtain something for free, there are still other things to buy, a point that Chris Anderson argues quite effectively in Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business.
To make this point crystal clear, Steve Lieber, discovered that the good folks at 4chan had scanned and uploaded every single page of his comic book Underground – from a Twitter message. But instead of screaming piracy, Lieber paid a brief visit to the 4chan forums to engage the fans who liked his work so much that they put in the effort to share it with the world. Rumors has it that Lieber cracked jokes while he was there and lived to blog about it. According to Lieber, there was a massive spike in the sales after 4chan got a hold of his content:
Note the difference between a glowing review from BoingBoing – one of the more “traditional” new media websites – and the “humungous” influence of the new new media outlet that is 4Chan. Is this a barometer for how content will be marked in the future? Some say it could be.
Om Malik’s recent blog post briefly examines why mainstream media outlets are failing – repeatedly – and makes a convincing case that there is no new media– it’s all about new consumption.
Here’s my favorite excerpt from the post: “Generation D, where D is for disruption, is adapted to route around the old models: old models controlled by old men.” Malik’s argument is that media industries are failing to see the big picture and understand what he characterizes to be the “new Internet people” which, I am assuming, probably includes the popcorn farts, IRC dwellers, 4chan, torrenters, YouTubers, and… well… participatory culture in general.
MachineCode
Oct 27th, 2010
For every person who would want to buy what someone is selling, there’s 10 people who probably wouldn’t buy it, but will take it for free.
The weird thing is that if it’s offered for free, why do the people who buy it still buy it?
The new model’s leech will benefit from the sensibilities of people like that. My personal thanks to them.
Urizenus
Oct 27th, 2010
I think it should be called Generation /b/.
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 27th, 2010
Music producers who do it just for the money don’t deserve to survive in the market. If you are so worried about the money, your heart isn’t in the music, where it should be.
edna
Oct 27th, 2010
Good for Gene. I knew there was reason I loved Kiss as a kid. You take food off of Gene’s table; I’m all for him being able to take something of yours. Let the theives rot in prison.
II Singh
Oct 27th, 2010
edna —-> blah blah blah blah blah
Same old tired capitalist dogma.
blah blah blah blah.
Ignore filters at maximum intensity Mr. Sulu.
II Singh
Oct 27th, 2010
I lived through the whole KISS brain damaged era (The first one(70s)). Every nitwit in Elementary school was drawing little kiss cartoons all over their notebooks. Never liked them always thought that aside from some interesting makeup there wasn’t much to them. Then I endured Gene Simmons and his Neanderthal reality show. More confirmation of what a resounding butthead he is and was. I can’t even begin to feel any sympathy for that nouveau riche trailer park reject.
Ted
Oct 27th, 2010
I got a kick out of Gene blowing off The Who in the video, as if they were not a success and didn’t succeed in capitalizing on their successes. Well, I too as the above poster Singh lived through the horrid nightmare of the Kiss generation with friends of the day plastering their bedroom walls with Kiss posters. I found it difficult to spend the night with those friends. And if what Gene believes he has done is successful, that is fine. But I wouldn’t want any part of it at all. “Brand” or no brand.
It is true that companies and businesses need a brand or something to distinguish themselves from others (which is what branding was created to do), but other than that, he holds nothing that impresses.
Nor did they or he in the 70′s from my view. And lawsuits and copyright(s) was not at all what “Branding” in and of itself was created and designed for.
His remark about the who was some pretty major giggles on this end. And the only reason I posted. The Who by far outweighed the likes of the Kiss band. I would rather listen to Yes, than Kiss. No matter his utter desire to believe different. Branding will never get him the recognition of many leading artists as he believes he has. Money, or no money. Success or no success. These are not always the determining factors. But everything he talked about was truly money hungry. Had nothing at all to do with the music.
I seriously doubt the majority of record label artists would take the stance that he has with what he said and how he acted in that video. It’s an embarrassment to musicians in my opinion. At least I don’t believe they would.
anonymoose
Oct 27th, 2010
True artists don’t do it for the money. They do it for the art.
That said, artists need to eat too. Free distribution of their work, wether legal or pirated, will mean free advertising. Wether or not that will result in sales, depends on the quality of their work.
In other words, only the really good ones will get my money, the lesser will only be illegally downloaded. In a way, that can be seen as sort of a rating… if you don’t sell but get pirated a lot, its a message to improve on your work. If you don’t get pirated either, find a new line of work.
Alazarin
Oct 27th, 2010
It goes without saying that the entire KISS phenomenon was a victory of marketing over content. Then again, as a life-long Yes fan, I have to admit that Yes is a very strong brand. As is Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Hawkwind, etc., etc. I feel that an awareness of one’s band indentity also being a brand is not in itself a bad thing.
My own take on the rise of the download culture is that it is almost impossible to fight and so to look at aspects of performance that are hard or almost impossible to bootleg. The first thing that comes to mind is to make the live performance an immersive spectacle. What I would call the ‘Cirque du Soleil’ approach. KISS, for all their sins, have touched on that approach albeit as a 1-trick gothic horror pony. The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd take out a different stage show for each tour. And why not? Each album has a different narrative text.
Such things are harder to bootleg and render any pirated content as free advertising for the live performance. Sure you could get the music and maybe even a few grainy videos of the tour off of pirate bay or wherever but it would be a pale substitute for actually being there.
Case in point: Avatar. Everyone and their dog downloaded a pirate copy of it but still went to see it in the cinema. Why? Because the 3D experience was unique to the cinema and well worth the ticket price.
Rebecca
Oct 27th, 2010
KISS and especially Gene Simmons were and remain massively overrated and legends in their own minds. The only reason that Gene is doing this is to gain publicity for his flagging career and brand. No one gives a shiny shit about him anymore so he’s desperate for any publicity he can get.
At0m0 Beerbaum
Oct 27th, 2010
How come it’s the shitty artists who blow their own horns in everyone else’s faces and act like they’re arrogant gods?
Oh right, overcompensating.
Then his son, Nick Simmons can do nothing better but plagiarize others as well. with no real talent to speak of, just like his father in that respect.
KISS has always been overrated, I tried to like their stuff, but found it very empty, they have one or two decent songs, but nothing to write home about. Then when they went 80′s ballad rock (aka, the death of rock) it was just plain awful.
Sadly they are more talented than a lot of the crap out these days. But Simmons is showing his true colors to the world, thanks to anonymous. He join the ranks of Lars Ulrich as a supreme massive faggot.
Also him talking down on The Who? Ha! The Who are much more popular and memorable than him. I dare him to jab at Hendrix next.
At0m0 Beerbaum
Oct 27th, 2010
@Alazarin
Worth the ticket price is questionable for an alien remake of Dances with wolves.
At0m0 Beerbaum
Oct 27th, 2010
Also one more thought,
The Industry will more than likely back Simmons’ statements, they have also voiced the same sentiment, and acted on it, by suing random people.
The entire music industry is a joke, run by thieves, con artists, and sociopaths. While they bitch about copyright enforcement, they often turn around and ignore it when they’re stealing and ripping off the public domain. Fun fact, you can be sued for infringing your own music, and the RIAA will try (and more than likely, successfully) gain ownership of it to make royalties off of it, even if you aren’t signed on with any of their labels. They also will sue people for infringing on what’s public domain.
Remember JibJab using Woodie Guthrie’s song, or rather making a parody with it?
RIAA shook them down for money and tried to sue them, thankfully, unsuccessfully. Guthrie was not a moron, the music industry was starting even back in his day, his copyright, even if still valid, states that it’s good for the original 14 year term we had on copyrights, and that despite that, anyone can use it in any way they want for free.
Yeah, that’s how low the industry will go to reap profit, it’s well known they’re greedy and arrogant. So again, they will likely back simmons in full support, and take it even further. Most of the modern artists will probably even back him, especially the shitty ones with stock options (like Metallica, Madonna, etc)
Glenn Beck
Oct 27th, 2010
You know who else listened to KISS?
…Hitler.
God gave Rock and Fürer to you…
AM Oderngrl
Oct 27th, 2010
@Alazarin
>It goes without saying that the entire KISS phenomenon was a victory of marketing over content. <
Autotune just made it easier for this to be the case. All those overproduced nymphettes who believed their own marketing hype are paying the price for it now, crashing when they realize it wasn't real.
Support live original music in small venues and go hear the real thing……in SL or in RL. Buy the CDs and tshirts direct from the band.
Boyd Doghouse
Oct 27th, 2010
The old model was that upon creation the creator held all rights to a work. He could sell it or give it away or store it in a drawer or make a contract with somebody to distribute it.
Under your model, upon creation, the creator loses all rights to a work and whatever other people want to do with copies of his work is up to them.
I simply suggest this is bullshit.
Capitalism, socialism, communism aside, giving a man the right to the fruits of his labor is a basic human right, one you guys are willing to toss aside simply because you can.
It’s not generation “D”, it’s generation “I want it NOW and I want it FREE and if I don’t get it I’m Gonna TAKE IT MOTHER FUCKER!”
Taking a copy of something is stealing when the copy of something is what has value. Duh. I’m sorry that’s so hard to understand.
Alazarin
Oct 27th, 2010
@ At0m0 Beerbaum: Oh I don’t deny for a moment that Avatar the film was one massive rip-off of the works of Boris and Arkady Strugatsky [who never got any recognition for their orginal ideas] and that the plot line was nothing more than Disneys’ Pocohantas script with the names and places changed *BUT* it was a 3D visual feast. Nothing else came close.
I see you use the ‘Dances with Wolves’ analogy and recall that one reviewer jokingly referred to Avatar as ‘Dances with Smurfs’
Alazarin
Oct 27th, 2010
@ Boyd Doghouse: The piracy and ‘download culture’ conundrum is a tricky one that won’t be solved by hurling abuse. I saw this as an artist whose life chances were shot below the waterline by this new internet ‘the media wants to be free’ paradigm.
It does me no good to get hot under the collar about it as it doesn’t generate any sales or income. Instead I have to look for ways to present [and sell] my work that are immune to piracy. Not easy, I’ll admit, but life’s full of challenges.
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 27th, 2010
@ Boyd Doghouse
The bullshit resides in your perception, not the business model itself. Sell tangible objects that can’t be copied for negligible costs and we’ll talk about how theft is a bad thing.
Didn’t you read the WIRED article they linked? I even read it back in print a year or three ago. It was easy to understand because I was imagining such a system for quite some time beforehand – if it costs you next to nothing to sell each individual copy, then don’t have a 9001% markup just to make some dough. That’s how free software can be profitable – sell CDs/DVDs at a relatively low cost (a few bucks) to people who can’t be bothered to download it. Think Ubuntu. You can grab a copy for free on the internet, sure, but they make a good bit of income off of CD/DVD sales, too. Similarly, bands can sell CDs/DVDs for a bit more than the production cost (because once you HAVE a production cost, it makes a bit of sense to charge a markup) or sell various other band-related items (t-shirts, posters, etc.)
I can’t wait for the day when it costs next to nothing to product tangible objects as well. That’ll be a fun battle.
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 27th, 2010
*produce
Not sure why my computer decided to post that prematurely, but whatever.
Anyways, as I was saying, there is no financially sound method of preventing free copies through aggressive, blanket lawsuits. The only thing you can do is figure out a business model that profits off of it and move on.
Boyd Doghouse
Oct 27th, 2010
You miss the point Nelson.
It’s they’re work, they get to decide how to distribute it, you don’t get the right to decide that you don’t like how they distribute it so you’ll just take it any way you can.
If this were food or medicine in a drought-ridden country I could kind of understand when people figure they have the right to help themselves when they don’t like or can’t afford the means of distribution, but it’s not food or medicine, it’s music and movies and video games.
There is no distribution model people will prefer to stealing their stuff for free, so long as there’s a perception that they won’t get caught and have to pay some consequence for it.
Some of these products have millions of dollars worth of production costs. Without a way to secure a revenue stream from the product, they creators will choose simply not to create because they can’t afford it.
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 27th, 2010
@ Boyd Doghouse
I didn’t read anywhere in the article that once a musician records a song, a team from the Public Domain Enforcement Agency will break down their door, take it away, and put it in the International Free Music Database. It’s up to an artist as to whether he wants to release his content to the public. If he doesn’t want it to be copied, too bad, that’s just a flaw with the current distribution system that has to be accepted.
And if a 10-track CD has millions of dollars worth of production costs, then someone in the finance department needs to get their shit straight and cut costs. Once you’ve out-spent the Iraq War on your rendition of yet another shitty song about your lost love, you’ve lost control of your operation and deserve to fail.
Boyd Doghouse
Oct 27th, 2010
Music usually doesn’t have that kind of production costs, but video games and movies often do.
A greater risk I don’t think people are seeing here is, what if people start deciding a free internet isn’t such a great idea after all, that maybe there needs to be some controls over the internet.
You think it’s not possible, but the major avenues of the internet are very expensive and run by a handful of companies, most of which are publicly regulated already.
It’s up to the users of the internet to show that they are responsible enough to handle a free internet and right now I don’t see that happening.
Darien Caldwell
Oct 27th, 2010
“You gotta admit: It’s a heck of an enterprise to take on the media – but Anonymous did.
Last month saw Web sites falling one after another as the hactivist aesthetic was played out.”
… aaannndd nobody noticed. Or cared. Didn’t see it on the news, or on CNN.COM, or Bloomberg, or in fact, anywhere, but.. here.
*yawn*
Kiddoh
Oct 27th, 2010
“… aaannndd nobody noticed. Or cared. Didn’t see it on the news, or on CNN.COM, or Bloomberg, or in fact, anywhere, but.. here.”
Do you even know what the media is?
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 27th, 2010
@ Kiddoh
It’s definitely not AH.
Kiddoh
Oct 27th, 2010
@ Nelson: Actually by definition Alphaville Herald is considered media. It may not be a media giant like MSNBC, but it’s still considered Soft Media and sometimes Hard Media.
I know as much as you don’t want AH to get credit for anything, you need to learn to practice what you preach and show some objectivity. AH does good in a lot of areas.
Tux
Oct 27th, 2010
Personally I wouldn’t pay for anything I didn’t like (mediawise).
That said, if I do like something I will buy it. A number of times if needs be. For example I have seven copies of Akira, why? because I wanted the limited edition discs, rare discs, standard etc etc etc.
Did I pay before seeing the film? nope, I had acquired it in a dodgy vhs tape!
So, if I was asked if downloaded music or movies stops me from making a donation to the creators I would answer:- No, it stops me from buying some piece of rubbish I wouldn’t have enjoyed!
Let crappy artists complain all they want. I want to try before I buy. Just like I do when I buy a new car. If I don’t find the artist entertaining why should I pay them for the displeasure?
The industries needs to change for sure. But it will not stop me doing my thing!
BTW I think Kiss are a bunch of useless faggots!
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 27th, 2010
@ Kiddoh
You’re telling me that AH is a reliable source of information? The Emerald scandal was brought into light partly because of AH, maybe, but look around. Poast Shit girls and satirical squatting how-to’s does not a news source make.
@ Tux
Please don’t call KISS a bunch of faggots. It offends me and fellow faggots everywhere.
c3
Oct 27th, 2010
“but it’s still considered Soft Media and sometimes Hard Media.”
yes.. exactly. just like a daily BM.
Tracey Humphreys
Oct 27th, 2010
@Darien Caldwell
“… aaannndd nobody noticed. Or cared. Didn’t see it on the news, or on CNN.COM, or Bloomberg, or in fact, anywhere, but.. here.
*yawn*”
If CNN and Bloomberg are your only sources of news, maybe you don’t know shit. So why are you wasting our time by posting?
Among hit (a lot harder) were Ministry of Sound websites, and the UK Goverment Intellectual Property Office website.
You can get full details of all these attacks at http://torrentfreak.com/
Kiddoh
Oct 27th, 2010
@Nelson: “You’re telling me that AH is a reliable source of information? The Emerald scandal was brought into light partly because of AH, maybe, but look around. Poast Shit girls and satirical squatting how-to’s does not a news source make.”
AH is localized news. If you were to read the local newspaper you would find similar stuff although perhaps not Post 6, but you will find local heroes and the funny pages. If you want to get deeper, I heard Playboy has some pretty great articles.
They’re all media. You’re just gonna have to accept that.
Tracey Humphreys
Oct 27th, 2010
RIAA is being targeted on Friday 29th October at 9pm EST.
(see http://www.tieve.tk/ )
Should be interesting! A bit more important than that arsewipe from Kiss.
Boyd Doghouse
Oct 27th, 2010
You know, reading the manifesto at the tieve.tk site, it’s pretty clear these people never worked in the entertainment industry and know nothing at all about how it works.
Look at the credits of a motion picture sometime. All those people have to get paid. On top of that there’s the cost of the equipment and consumables like film stock and light gels, then there’s costuming, electricity, catering, studio or location rental.
It’s not like the artist gets a pittance and the rest goes in some rich guy’s pocket. All these costs have to be paid. With some motion pictures it takes years for them to turn a profit.
The Wizard of Oz is a great example. It didn’t turn a profit until they began broadcasting it on television in the 50′s.
How many films like that would ever be made under this proposed system of donations/piracy/bullshit? Zero. Nada.
You’re shooting yourself in the foot bypassing copyrights. Without it the quality, quantity and scope of these works will dramatically reduce with little left besides SXEPHIL, Red vs Blue, and Boxee on youtube.
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 27th, 2010
@ Boyd Doghouse
I’ve never worked in the entertainment industry (unless you count entertaining the regulars here with my tl;dr rants) so I probably know nothing at all about how it works either, right? Haha, no. Record labels strike up deals with sellout money-whore artists to promote their work and cover the costs of mass factory production, RIAA takes a cut of the pie to lobby the government with their stupid bullshit and previously also spearheaded massive legal campaigns which turned out to be a money drain, and all the while the consumer gets shafted by paying $19.99 for a CD with $9.95 worth of music and $0.04 worth of tangible production costs. As for movies, it’s the same thing except MPAA instead of RIAA and twice the costs.
I actually looked up some profit margins last night on the Terminator trilogy (not that shitty Salvation or TV remake junk) while I was watching it through. The original Terminator’s budget was $6.4M and made back $4M on the opening weekend, eventually grossing $38.4M within 3 months. This doesn’t include VHS copies (or even DVD copies sold today). So it’s very, very, VERY easy to make a mindblowing film and pay off all those crew members using solely the box office income.
Despite this, you did quote the Wizard of Oz (which is so outdated and used such a different business model that it’s completely irrelevant today) so I’ll give you those statistics as well (keep in mind that this was for the 1998 reissue): $2.8M budget, $5.4M opening weekend, $14.8M total gross. I would like to see some statistics for when it was released (you know, back in 1939, when the film scene was totally different) but I assume you don’t have any.
In any case, it is impossible to determine exactly how many good movies would be made under a “give what you can” system because no such system exists. Do you have some sort of irrefutable evidence that not a single person in the world would make movies then give away the DVD’s on a donation system? Of course not. Because no such argument can be made. It’s completely irrational and just can’t be done.
Now, let me explain. There are 4 possible methods of establishing an entertainment economy:
– “Mo’ money, less problems”: You pay for everything, in theory. Theater visits, DVD movies, soundtracks, merchandise, et cetera. This is the system we have now for mainstream entertainment. It works, sort of, but it’s plagued with corruption, shitty artists that are in it just to make a buck, and “pirates” that either don’t want to pay (because they’re poor/greedy), don’t want to pay and get shafted (so they try before they buy), or just don’t want to buy a movie where half their money would go to the big-shot lawyers that are out to get them.
– “Sit through this ad, then you’re good to go”: You don’t pay anything; you just have to be subjected to an advertisement, which covers the costs. Some YouTubers work this method, but most notable for ad-supported content is Hulu. (The free version, not Hulu Plus.) The only downside is that ads suck, but hey, they’ve gotta make money somehow.
– “Buy my book/shirt/poster/ejaculate”: You only pay for the accessories. If you just want to watch, more power to you. This is how many YouTubers turn a profit and make customers happy at the same time.
– “Buy the DVD for special features and extra content”: You can buy the tangible media for later viewing and some extra tidbits. A lot of YouTubers work this route, too. I don’t really know how effective it is given the proliferation of YouTube downloading tools, but it probably puts a bit of money in their pockets. TV shows are also good at this (if you ignore having to pay for the cable TV service itself).
– “Come see it live/in theaters, get it for free later”: You can see it early in theaters (or live, for music) with friends and family, and later you can get it for free. Not the most profitable concept (since after the show is over, there’s no profit), but combined with other merchandise, it works fine.
– “It’s your lucky day!”: You don’t pay shit. They don’t get paid shit. This is the theory that you’re working under, I think, and it makes you look like an idiot.
Having said that, there are many, many YouTubers who know a thing or two about good production value. Discrediting them in favor of the gems you mentioned (which are mostly outdated now) is just ignoring the talent of the truly gifted.
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 27th, 2010
*4 good methods (the first 4, since the last 2 are pretty bad on their own)
Bit distracted today, I suppose.
Tracey Humphreys
Oct 27th, 2010
Boyd.
Wizard of Oz is NOT a great example. It was released in 1939, the same year World War 2 started. It didn’t get released in Europe till much later.
I just looked at the IMDB charts.
The number 1 film on there, ‘Paranormal Activity 2′.
It cost $2.75 million (estimated) to make.
It was released on 22nd October.
Over the weekend of 22nd October it took $40.7 million.
I bet Paramount Pictures are wondering if it is worth their while bothering to make any more movies, with such paltry rewards.
Emperor Norton hears a who?
Oct 27th, 2010
Stalin enforced copyright law.
Just saying.
Tux
Oct 27th, 2010
@ Nelson
/me bows in respect of your chosen path of faggotry ;o)
Tracey Humphreys
Oct 27th, 2010
@Emperor Norton
“Stalin enforced copyright law.”
Stalin was an ally of Hitler (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact).
They divided up Poland between them
Tracey Humphreys
Oct 27th, 2010
btw:
The Wizard of Oz was released on 12th August 1939
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler was signed on 23 August 1939.
The invasion of Poland by Hitler began on 1 September 1939.
(I posted this as AH readers seem to be very interested in Adolph Hitler, for some reason unknown to me.)
Senban Babii
Oct 27th, 2010
@Tracey Humphreys
“(I posted this as AH readers seem to be very interested in Adolph Hitler, for some reason unknown to me.)”
Alphaville Herald
Adolf Hitler
Alphaville Hitler
Adolf Herald
Coincidence? Or JLU conspiracy? Only Prok knows and she’s not saying…..
Boyd Doghouse
Oct 28th, 2010
Every few years the industry produces a film like that with low costs and high grosses and it usually saves their asses financially.
They’re not the norm.
You mentioned the Terminator. That’s a James Cameron film. Cameron went on to produce some of the most expensive movies ever made.
You’re also missing the biggest point here. These people produce this work, they front the money for it, shouldn’t they (and not you) decide how to distribute it?
You act as if you have some right to their work at whatever price or delivery model you set. You do not. Neither do I.
When you seize the fruits of a man’s labor, you take away his freedom.
When you seize the fruit’s of their labor so you can get your Lady Ga Ga or Justin Beeper fix, it makes you and extraordinarily shallow person.
IntLibber Brautigan
Oct 28th, 2010
I think it is totally inappropriate for people to attack Gene Simmons or any artist. Pirates justify their theft by claiming that artists are “exploited” by music studios, yet here they are attacking the very people they claim to be supporting!! This proves that their propaganda is merely BS justification for thievery and should be condemned.
General Drama
Oct 28th, 2010
I find it incredibly amusing that a confessed Yes fan is accusing KISS of being marketing whores.
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 28th, 2010
@ Boyd Doghouse
Every few years the industry produces a film like that with low costs and high grosses and it usually saves their asses financially. They’re not the norm.
And of course, just blowing money at them will encourage them to figure out movies that have low production costs but high grosses, right? Because they definitely care about cutting costs when everyone and their left testicle is forced into blowing $20 to see it in unnecessary 3D and another $40 to buy it on Blu-Ray a few months later.
You mentioned the Terminator. That’s a James Cameron film. Cameron went on to produce some of the most expensive movies ever made.
I have, on this website, mentioned my homosexuality. That’s a result of my parents. My parents also went on to produce heterosexual offspring. Does that affect my homosexuality or have any place in an argument about gay rights? Of course not.
You’re also missing the biggest point here. These people produce this work, they front the money for it, shouldn’t they (and not you) decide how to distribute it?
They do. And many producers chose good business models, y’know, the ones where we’re not milked $60 for a movie, then given DRM spyware on our computers and taken to court if we have friends over to watch it. Under your same exact logic, shouldn’t I (and not their lawyers) decide how to obtain their work if they choose a distribution method not to my tastes?
You act as if you have some right to their work at whatever price or delivery model you set. You do not. Neither do I.
Are you seriously arguing that neither of our opinions actually matter anyways?
When you seize the fruits of a man’s labor, you take away his freedom.
I already addressed this, but I’ll address it again because you either didn’t read my argument, you’re arguing for the sake of argument, or you’re a complete and utter idiot.
We’re not going to mandate that the Public Domain Enforcement Agency break down artists’ doors once they’ve finished recording something and taking their art away for distribution in the International Free Music Database (or Movie, whatever).
You have completely missed the purpose of Operation Payback and my argument as a whole.
Operation Payback is aiming to take down the lawyers who are maliciously, inappropriately, and perhaps illegally obtaining personal contact information for the purpose of extorting money from alleged file-sharers, many of which have no idea that their IP address was logged and have absolutely zero knowledge of BitTorrent nor the content that was allegedly stolen. In addition, for Time Warner Cable customers (read: me), Dunlap, Grubb, and Weaver (the law firm that started this whole mess) actually demanded up to 50% more in settlement costs solely because TWC legally and respectfully refused to compromise their customers’ personal information to a shady law firm that has virtually no admissible evidence and a 100% malicious cause. Are you implying, by any stretch of the imagination, that we are to be supporting these law firms who use brute-force scare tactics to settle with hundreds, if not thousands of alleged filesharers who have no knowledge of anything they’re alleging happened?
Now, as for my argument, I am proposing that this system in which everyone pays for everything is completely outdated and in need of some major changes. It is not logical, it is not fair, and it is not necessary. I am not saying that artists don’t have the right to choose to continue with such a system (as I surely hope Gene Simmons does so I may get a nice laugh when his music sales screech to a halt). I am also not saying that it should be at all required that one not charge for a CD/DVD or a live show (or both). I am simply saying that we need to recognize that the tactics that these law firms are using is proof that some artists will simply stop at nothing to get rich and they do not deserve to be rich nor hire lawyers to threaten law-abiding citizens with grossly overpriced settlements in laughable cases with absolutely no valid evidence.
When you seize the fruit’s of their labor so you can get your Lady Ga Ga or Justin Beeper fix, it makes you and extraordinarily shallow person.
Because I play that shit in my car all day.
@ IntLibber Brautigan
Artists are not exploited by music studios; we are. Artists would not leave prices at $40 for a Blu-Ray if studios and lobbyists would butt out. In addition, Operation Payback is not targeting artists; it is targeting the malicious law firms that think it’s perfectly fine to… well, just read my rant above. The only reason Gene was targeted was because he spoke out rather bluntly against Operation Payback and pirates as a whole.
II Singh
Oct 28th, 2010
>>I think it is totally inappropriate for people to attack Gene Simmons or any artist.
@INT sometimes a guy (or band) just sucks. If you think about it the degree of suckiness might be a form of self preservation. I can guarantee I will NEVER bit torrent a KISS album. If I wanted something of a similar artistic vein I would download an MP3 of a public sporting event bathroom that just had a bad outbreak of food poisoning. I am sure violent bowel evacuation is at least a 100 times more pleasant than a KISS album.
@General Yes may in fact be to some degree a media whore band but these guys can play their own instruments with a a degree of skill that KISS can’t hope to match. Jon Anderson’s lyrics may be a little esoteric or bizarre but at least they can’t be accused of the lobotimized banality of KISS (which stands for Keep It Supremely Shitty).
80s dude
Oct 28th, 2010
Whatever happened to Yello? now there is a band worth collecting.
Boyd Doghouse
Oct 28th, 2010
Don’t piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Operation payback isn’t about the lawsuits, it’s about keeping open the channels for “file sharing” so everybody can rip whatever content they can find.
When people ignore the law, upping the ante to the fullest extent of the law is a fairly logical step.
The only way to stop people from stealing content is to make people realize there are serious consequences to their actions and that’s what anonymous is against, there being any consequences to their law breaking.
Nelson Jenkins
Oct 28th, 2010
@ Boyd Doghouse
I’m sorry to see that you’re simply a stubborn brat intent on proving your inane point that Operation Payback is just to secure TPB for the thieving dullards of the internet – a website no doubt quite familiar to you, I dare say.
That being said, I sincerely apologize for attempting to persuade you otherwise, as no doubt you have wasted precious hours typing up your wild, inconclusive posts herein – as I have done the same, albeit for undoubtedly a much shorter time period.
If you do, for some incomprehensible reason, decide to read through my posts and either agree with them or determinately offer your rebuttal on each, I shall entertain your frivolous proposals.
@ II Singh
I always thought it meant “Keep Immense Songwriters’ Salaries”.