This shit gets out of hand

Jimmy Clayton said:
That being said, I do think it would probably be appropriate for something to be done so these movie studios and other entertainment companies can at least earn enough revenue to continue putting out there stuff...


I support Tom Cruise and Jay-Z.
Click to expand...

Tom Cruise makes 25 million per film and Jay Z reportedly just bought a private island in the Bahamas. All or most of Jay's money has been made in the download era.

Iron Man 3 has already passed the billion dollar mark and is the 5th highest grossing film of all time.

Jimmy Clayton said:
Would it not make sense for a reader to pay for the privilege of reading quality content that has all been assembled for them?
Click to expand...

Sure if they want, but newspapers typically make most of their money off of advertising.

Look at the guys in my avatar. Each episode on NBC was basically a mini-movie and at one point Don Johnson was getting a million dollars per episode. For most of television history, the strategy for all channels was to put the free signal out as far they could, and then use the "traffic" to bring in ad revenue.


thehobbster said:
Did this nigga really just say "Top Gun"?
Click to expand...

754a6e87_fat-val-kilmer.jpg
 


Jimmy Clayton said:
Can every amazing writer make their own site, distribute it themselves and still make money...all while spending time perfecting their craft? Does every writer want to do that?
Click to expand...

An amazing writer would only have to create their website one time. Updating their site is as easy as writing and clicking save. Creating the website is only a little more work than that, with all the template engines and frameworks available.

I guess that weekend of light techie work is still harder than weeks of pounding pavement to get your work published, hoping none of those giant publishers don't just steal your work without compensating you? Or are they like, seriously, totally, absolutely done ripping artists off?
 
Fuck the entertainment industry. Do a deal. Put anything I could possibly want in one easy place for me to stream and I will gladly pay upwards of $39.99 a month to watch it. I'm sure billions of other people would do the same. You will make more money than you ever dreamed possible. Now don't go fucking it up with ad's, won't tolerate the bullshit.


Oh btw when I said everything, I meant everything. Any tv show imaginable, any movie (yA even the good ones). You have until the first DVD rip becomes available to sell your movies however you want.

Unfortunately there are to many conflicting interests who think their piece of shit movie deserves $4 a download. Or 1 20 year old tv show is worth a a buck
 
dmnEPC said:
Fuck the entertainment industry. Do a deal. Put anything I could possibly want in one easy place for me to stream and I will gladly pay upwards of $39.99 a month to watch it. I'm sure billions of other people would do the same.
Click to expand...

They already do something like this and with billions of subscribers. I think they call it cable.

dmnEPC said:
You will make more money than you ever dreamed possible.
Click to expand...

These RIAA/MPAA people are bat scat crazy.

If it were about the money, I would be surprised. I'm fairly certain that they are closet luddites scared to death of any new technology. In that way it is kind of about the money, but only because they know their entire business model (and the power that comes with it) is threatened by existing and future technology.

They stand more to lose than just billions in revenue, they will lose their ability to manipulate our culture to their preference.
 
Napolean said:
An amazing writer would only have to create their website one time. Updating their site is as easy as writing and clicking save. Creating the website is only a little more work than that, with all the template engines and frameworks available.

I guess that weekend of light techie work is still harder than weeks of pounding pavement to get your work published, hoping none of those giant publishers don't just steal your work without compensating you? Or are they like, seriously, totally, absolutely done ripping artists off?
Click to expand...

When I said "create and distribute", I made the mistake of assuming that in the distribute part, marketing would have been a given. I should have been more clear and specific.

Yea, you could pay someone $500 to create a site, or even do it yourself, but that doesn't really do anything. Build it and they will come. Except, that's not how it works.

It would take more than a weekend to even build an audience that's 1% of what the NYT gets. It would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time and people to manage, etc...
 
Napolean said:
They already do something like this and with billions of subscribers. I think they call it cable.
Click to expand...

True but what I am talking about would change the world. No more of this forcing you to watch what they want you to watch. Think Netflix, but with good content. Not this rehashed shit from 30 years ago. New fresh content.

These RIAA/MPAA people are bat scat crazy.

If it were about the money, I would be surprised. I'm fairly certain that they are closet luddites scared to death of any new technology. In that way it is kind of about the money, but only because they know their entire business model (and the power that comes with it) is threatened by existing and future technology.

They stand more to lose than just billions in revenue, they will lose their ability to manipulate our culture to their preference.
Click to expand...

agreed
 
dmnEPC said:
Fuck the entertainment industry. Do a deal. Put anything I could possibly want in one easy place for me to stream and I will gladly pay upwards of $39.99 a month to watch it. I'm sure billions of other people would do the same. You will make more money than you ever dreamed possible. Now don't go fucking it up with ad's, won't tolerate the bullshit.


Oh btw when I said everything, I meant everything. Any tv show imaginable, any movie (yA even the good ones). You have until the first DVD rip becomes available to sell your movies however you want.

Unfortunately there are to many conflicting interests who think their piece of shit movie deserves $4 a download. Or 1 20 year old tv show is worth a a buck
Click to expand...

Is streaming a valid way to prevent piracy? This is a legitimate question, because I really don't know the answer. I would assume that people know how to (or will find a way pretty quickly) to rip it and post it up for free downloading.

In this case, you have created a platform where someone can find all of the movies they want to rip and then repost for their own purposes for just $39.99 per month.
 
The entertainment industry is like a scuba diver who swims in the ocean with meat tied to their legs and then bitch the sharks are attacking them.

So long as they deliver content on media that you can copy, redistribute, rip, etc, they'll always have piracy.

Look at the gaming industry- they've learned. In five years or less Gamestop will not be able to sell any used current titles. The used game store is going away.

Movies/TV will need to adapt and change their delivery of content. Partner with Microsoft/Sony and deliver encrypted, streaming content only to cable boxes and video game systems. I don't know exact measures, but they have engineers smart enough to figure that shit out.

What's really annoying is that this shit wasn't a problem when VHS was the main source for distribution. Maybe it's because I was a kid and wasn't privvy to the news of the day, but it seems the advent of digital distribution was the real start of the "problems" for the entertainment industry.

Meanwhile, they're making record profits year after year... Fucking hollywood kooks.
 
Jimmy Clayton said:
Is streaming a valid way to prevent piracy? This is a legitimate question, because I really don't know the answer. I would assume that people know how to (or will find a way pretty quickly) to rip it and post it up for free downloading.

In this case, you have created a platform where someone can find all of the movies they want to rip and then repost for their own purposes for just $39.99 per month.
Click to expand...

You will never kill piracy. There have been pirates since the beginning of time. Hell just look at the pirates that came on the mayflower to steal the Land that is now America from the indians.

But if you make it so easy to use. Make it a hassle to pirate. Put everything in one easy to find place,and price it aggressively. You will convert many a pirate. Netflix is proof it can work. Why would you go through the hassle of downloading breaking bad when it's so easy to just stream it. But they can't do it right. If you want to watch current episodes you have no choice but to pirate it. Even with a full cable package I would rather download it then wait around for my cable company to decide when I should watch it
 
Jimmy Clayton said:
It would take more than a weekend to even build an audience that's 1% of what the NYT gets.
Click to expand...

If you're doing it yourself, you won't need 1% of New York Times's audience.

New York Times is going to start your salary at $80-$90k/year to be a writer for them.

If instead you reached that elusive 1% of their audience without working for them, which comes out to about 16,000 subscribers, you would need to make $5.62 per subscriber per year to match that $90k/year to work for them.

If you set a realistic goal of 2,500 subscribers, and could earn $36/year from each subscriber, you are still better off doing things yourself.

Jimmy Clayton said:
It would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of time and people to manage, etc...
Click to expand...

Why? Suppose instead of going to college, you spent your time building your audience for 4 years. You would only need to gain 52 subscribers per month before you would be approaching $100k/year.

Sounds doable to me.
 
dmnEPC said:
You will never kill piracy.
Click to expand...

Agree...

dmnEPC said:
There have been pirates since the beginning of time. Hell just look at the pirates that came on the mayflower to steal the Land that is now America from the indians.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't call them pirates, but that's a whole other story...

dmnEPC said:
But if you make it so easy to use. Make it a hassle to pirate. Put everything in one easy to find place,and price it aggressively. You will convert many a pirate. Netflix is proof it can work. Why would you go through the hassle of downloading breaking bad when it's so easy to just stream it. But they can't do it right. If you want to watch current episodes you have no choice but to pirate it. Even with a full cable package I would rather download it then wait around for my cable company to decide when I should watch it
Click to expand...

Well...I'm not so sure I agree with all of this.

"Put everything in one easy place and price it aggressively."

Who decides the price? Who decides what goes in? Who decides what stays out? Who owns this? The MPAA? How are profits divided? Can independent films get in made by indie producers? Etc...In theory it sounds nice, but in real life, I think it may cause more problems than it would solve.

"You will convert many a pirate"

As of now, it is incredibly easy to download and watch pirated stuff. It takes no time at all to find it, and since internet connections are so fast it takes almost no time to download.

Do you really believe that someone who has been downloading stuff for free with ease for years is going to want to download stuff with ease, but pay for it now from a "sanctioned" organization? I don't really think that would happen en masse...

"Netflix is proof it can work."

I am not 100% sure what aspect you are speaking of. If it's in terms of Netflix working in a macro perspective (i.e convening lots of media in one place and offering it for one price) then maybe. If its Netflix converting pirates, then I will vehemently disagree. But I am pretty sure you were talking about the former, not the latter...

On a side note, take a look at House of Cards. It would be interesting to see some of the numbers for that program and see how well it did financially, because even that program was ripped almost right away and downloaded by massive amounts of people. (I assume)
 
Napolean said:
If you're doing it yourself, you won't need 1% of New York Times's audience.

New York Times is going to start your salary at $80-$90k/year to be a writer for them.

If instead you reached that elusive 1% of their audience without working for them, which comes out to about 16,000 subscribers, you would need to make $5.62 per subscriber per year to match that $90k/year to work for them.

If you set a realistic goal of 2,500 subscribers, and could earn $36/year from each subscriber, you are still better off doing things yourself.



Why? Suppose instead of going to college, you spent your time building your audience for 4 years. You would only need to gain 52 subscribers per month before you would be approaching $100k/year.

Sounds doable to me.
Click to expand...


Your post is looking only at the money aspect, though.

Sure, 2,500 subscribers at $36 a year is very doable. 52 subscribers per month for 4 years? Not a problem.

But, at the end of the day, you are still just a small time writer with 2500 subscribers making $$$.

On the other hand, if you write for something like the NYT, you are reaching way more than 2500 people easy, and there is the prestige and the reputation that comes from writing in the New York Times.

You can parlay that into something much bigger than 2500 readers paying how ever much money per month.

To create a "vehicle" that would give you the prestige, readership, future prospects and all the other fringe benefits of having your writing in the NYT would take a lot of people, a lot of money, and a hell of a lot more than 4 years.

I think, overall, we are both looking at this issue from totally different perspectives, though...
 
Jimmy Clayton said:
Do you really believe that someone who has been downloading stuff for free with ease for years is going to want to download stuff with ease, but pay for it now from a "sanctioned" organization? I don't really think that would happen en masse...
Click to expand...

People pay for VPN's for the purpose of downloading torrents, and people pay for private memberships to exclusive torrent sites.

People also pay for internet access, cable tv, satellite tv, netflix, hulu, etc..

If a cheaper alternative were available, even pirates would jump on it.

Any time you're buying something that depreciates 80% once you leave the store, that should be a clear indicating someone is screwing you. There should never be that much of a gap between retail and private sale on a brand new product.
 
Jimmy Clayton said:
I think, overall, we are both looking at this issue from totally different perspectives, though...
Click to expand...

Definitely. You're perspective is of the person who does something for the prestige, fame, and other superficial motivations.

My perspective is of a person doing what they love and earning a living doing it. From that perspective it doesn't even feel like work. You earn your happiness from within, instead of depending on others for the validation that you are good at what you do.
 
Napolean said:
Definitely. You're perspective is of the person who does something for the prestige, fame, and other superficial motivations.
Click to expand...

Well, if you call leveraging an existing media platform and gaining credibility by writing for an organization that is a "name brand" as a step to vault myself into a position where I can reach more people with my point of view, influence others and make a lot more money instead of focusing on small time things like writing for some little website that no one knows or really cares about then yea, my motivations are only "superficial".

Napolean said:
You earn your happiness from within, instead of depending on others for the validation that you are good at what you do.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that someone whose motivations I described above is automatically seeking external validation because they are writing for someone like the NYT and all the benefits it brings?

It's quite a jump to start assuming you can tell whether someone is seeking internal or external validation based on such a shallow (or should I say superficial) understanding of their deeper motivations...
 
Spotify and Pandora have stopped me from downloading music.

Its so much easier to pay the $9.99/m for Spotify and basically be able to listen to whatever the fuck I want.

As stated above, if the MPAA did something like that for 0day movies and hd streaming, I would subscribe to it for life.

They are just a bunch of greedy fucks trying desperately to hold on to the empire they have lobbied for and created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom