Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[NooDle]

They said on the radio you Noodle-people would not pay vehicle tax and VAT on cars anymore, isnt that correct? I quite like the dutch proposal if its what I think it is, you pay according to how much you drive instead of what kind of fuel your car runs on.

at the moment it's unsure what they'll do. Which means that if an election is coming up, they'll say "no moar taxes" and then after the election they'll forget they said it.

I don't like the way they want to implement it though - a GPS unit in EVERY car, recording where you go to determine your mileage. Yeeeah, I totally can't see any privacy concerns right there.

This. And also, if every car is fitted with a GPS, they will be able to tell where you are and what the speedlimit is, and they can sort of catch you speeding ALL the time.

Also, quick calculation would make this quite expensive... for me atleast. Now i'm paying around 500? a year in taxes and stuff. If the new system is implemented and I keep driving about the same amount, it would be 2000?+

 

[AiR]

SUPRISE
Music industry lies
Piracy increases revenue

http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/...-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

 

[Twerp128]

Just like the RIAA can twist numbers so can The Times. It is no secret the recording industry has taken a hit from piracy, and if you want real numbers to prove it search some stocks like Warner Music Group. Although I disagree with the RIAA's approach to handling the issue, it's pretty clear they're being affected negatively from piracy (and the negative image they're creating by fighting it the wrong way) They just have to do what other media companies have done, and trim the fat, trim jobs and focus on obtaining higher profit from less revenue. People are and will lose jobs over this, but it isn't the first time technology has killed the labor force.

 

[Dogbert]

it's pretty clear they're being affected negatively from piracytheir backwards and strongarm business models, their inability to cope with the progressive movement of media sharing, and the absolute shit they're producing

FTFY

"Piracy" has nothing to do with it. You can legally "pirate" Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails albums, just to cite the most prominent examples, and they're hardly hurting for money from such.


Most of my all-time favorite bands were discovered through piracy. Taking The Bouncing Souls for instance; I pirated many of their songs in high school, and actually pirated their entire discography not too long ago. However, I've also bought three shirts, two albums, and gone to eleven concerts of theirs in five years... including four Warped Tour's. Not to mention the number of friends that have listened to said pirated songs and turned into Bouncing Souls fans.

So that's $275, which is over twice as much as they would have gotten from me had I just bought all their albums legally. And they operate their own non-RIAA label (and sometimes release on another non-RIAA label), so they don't have to deal with the overhead costs that an RIAA membership creates. Now, you tell me why the RIAA can't seem to make a profit in this industry anymore.

 

[jetsetter]

I predicted last month that the White House would lose its war with Fox News. That now looks to be the case with the announcement by Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett that Fox is one of five networks selected to interview Barack Obama in Beijing this evening, with each allotted ten minutes with the President.

The decision to include Fox in tonight?s interview roster, alongside the likes of NBC, ABC and CBS, is a humiliating about-turn for the White House after it spent weeks rubbishing Fox?s credibility. As Anita Dunn, the Mao-quoting White House communications director put it in an interview in October with The New York Times:

?We?re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don?t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.?

Dunn has already announced her departure from the White House, and is expected to step down at the end of November. She will be succeeded by her deputy Dan Pfeiffer.

The decision to grant a major interview to Fox on a high-profile foreign trip is a smart move by the White House. The Obama administration?s campaign against Fox was widely viewed, not only on the right but by many on the left as well, as a mean-spirited and vindictive vendetta against a hugely popular cable news station that dared to portray the policies of the Obama team in a negative light.

The White House?s stunning climb-down is also a reflection of the fact that the president?s popularity is rapidly eroding in a nation that is growing increasingly conservative, rather than liberal. As I wrote previously:

?Fox News is succeeding in America precisely because it is not afraid to challenge the status quo, and to take on the power of big government. It is unique in broadcast media in going against the grain of the dominant liberal networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, by providing an alternative perspective in a nation where conservatives are still the largest ideological group according to Gallup. Television news in America has for decades been dominated by a left-of-centre oligopoly that has not reflected public opinion. That smug arrangement was shattered when Fox opened for business in the mid-1990s.?

Today?s announcement is not only a big symbolic win for Fox, but also a victory for press freedom in America. It is the role of the media in a free society to actively question the policies and actions of government and its elected officials. The White House?s war against Fox smacked of authoritarianism in a nation built around the principles of free speech, free enterprise and limited government. Its decision to back down is good news for all US media outlets, of whatever political stripe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...hite-house-has-lost-its-war-against-fox-news/

:lol:

 

[salle]

IMHO The problem for the music companies is that they're not embracing the new market situation but instead fighting it and trying to keep on promoting artists like they've always done. Thus they're wasting a shit tonne of their own money rather than expanding and gaining more influence in the places they can earn money.

I mean instead of trying to shut down things like last.fm why not try and make something better... take the concept, add in all the art properties they own (music videos, interviews/press releases/news messages/lyrics/cover art/cd booklet etc), make the service pay per use or monthly subscription or buy as you go along or whatever... at a price that is realistic... making people discover more of their artists buying more of their records and attending more of their concerts and events... giving the companies more money and the cost for individual artist to add to that would be tiny. Have things like playlists being shareable and make it really easy for you to get suggestions for songs or artists based on your selection of favorite artists etc....

 

[Twerp128]

FTFY

"Piracy" has nothing to do with it. You can legally "pirate" Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails albums, just to cite the most prominent examples, and they're hardly hurting for money from such.


Most of my all-time favorite bands were discovered through piracy. Taking The Bouncing Souls for instance; I pirated many of their songs in high school, and actually pirated their entire discography not too long ago. However, I've also bought three shirts, two albums, and gone to eleven concerts of theirs in five years... including four Warped Tour's. Not to mention the number of friends that have listened to said pirated songs and turned into Bouncing Souls fans.

So that's $275, which is over twice as much as they would have gotten from me had I just bought all their albums legally. And they operate their own non-RIAA label (and sometimes release on another non-RIAA label), so they don't have to deal with the overhead costs that an RIAA membership creates. Now, you tell me why the RIAA can't seem to make a profit in this industry anymore.

The big labels are losing money to piracy, they are. Yes, they'd do best to not fight it and cut jobs, hundreds of them, cut all the under performing niche bands, and just lean out their companies. It's how the industry is going. But don't tell me not paying for music makes them money, money is made in record industry from back catalogues and the few A-List bands a label has signed. Money is not made from T-shirt sales from niche bands, that is where money is going right down the drain.

I don't care for the RIAA or the way they hold themselves, but don't try and justify piracy. If a band wants to distribute music for free great, otherwise it's stealing.

 

[Plissken]

Money is not made from T-shirt sales from niche bands, that is were money is going right down the drain.

Money is being made. By the bands. Dogbert is right (must spread reputation...) - what is killing the record labels is their own stupidity. First by fighting against MP3s in all their forms. Did you know that 25% of all music sales in the US is via iTunes? From nothing to 25% in six years.

Second is the marketing of, well, shit. The record companies have retreated to established acts and whatever shit Simon Cowell pumps out. And they make a fortune from it - Alexandra Burke headlines 20,000 seat arenas and she gets paid ?250 for it. She sings Hallelujah, it gets to #1 and the record company owns the singer, the song and the production and distribution. Girls Aloud are salaried. So they are very adept at squeezing money out.

But that market can only take so much, there isn't long term fans there, Burke and Leona Lewis, for all their slightly above average talent, are just Generic Singer #39456.

Meanwhile, your Radioheads and your Nine Inch Nails, the ones who could pump out a big album every other year have their contracts expire. They aren't interested in signing new ones, they've made their money and don't need digital distribution any more. U2 make more money from touring than they do from albums, but that is because they have been around for so long and have very smart management. (See also Iron Maiden.)

You say money is made from back catalogues. Well, with their next big thing, single of the week mentality, there is no back catalogue. No artist gets to develop or make mistakes - they get dropped as soon as their first single only hits #4.

And the best thing is, the artists have wised up to this too. A growing number have a hit record and then join the business as managers or songwriters, where the real money is. (Cathy Dennis, bloke from the new Radicals.) Lily Allen, Charlotte Church, Katy Perry - all more famous for TV and "presenting" than being singers. When they got signed to single album deals, the record companies thought they were covering their losses if it turned out to be crap - what happened was they had the next big thing and couldn't hold on to them.

 

[Twerp128]

You say money is made from back catalogues. Well, with their next big thing, single of the week mentality, there is no back catalogue. No artist gets to develop or make mistakes - they get dropped as soon as their first single only hits #4.

They buy back catolgues to all sorts of bands old and new and have the rights to sell the music, the classics no matter the genre always sell in great numbers. You know what made Virgin money to sign big bands, NOW! That's what I call music. There is no reason a Label would ever drop a number 4 band and would like a example to prove your point. The majority of bands signed are a loss.

 

[Dogbert]

Money is not made from T-shirt sales from niche bands, that is where money is going right down the drain.

Funnily enough, it's that kind of thinking that is killing the RIAA. What's the difference if I buy a $15 CD or a $15 t-shirt?

If it didn't make money, bands wouldn't be selling it.

 

[Twerp128]

It is what has always killed the record industry.

 

[Dogbert]

It is what has always killed the record industry.

Just like every major innovation to happen to the audio world. Home taping, playing the radio in businesses, file sharing, satellite radio time delay... it's all "killing the record industry".

And you know what? The "record industry" isn't dying; on the contrary, it's bigger than ever. It's the RIAA monopoly that's dying, and it's far from "the record industry". The fact that so many RIAA-independent labels are being created and putting out chart-topping music, and so much music in general is being distributed, can attest to this.

 

[salle]

well the radio was supposedly going kill the live hall music industry.

 

[Plissken]

There is no reason a Label would ever drop a number 4 band and would like a example to prove your point.

Steve Brookstein was the first winner of The X Factor in 2004. The first single debuted at #2 and went to #1. This was January.

He released an album in May which sold 250,000 copies and was #1 in the UK.

He never released a second single and was dropped in August.

 

[AiR]

Must spread before Plissken again etc

 

[Karoug]

Funnily enough, it's that kind of thinking that is killing the RIAA. What's the difference if I buy a $15 CD or a $15 t-shirt?

If it didn't make money, bands wouldn't be selling it.

The problem is also that a normal band makes very little money from record sales. They make their monies from live gigs and T-shirts. I've been in that position so i know how retarded the music industry really is.

 

[nomix]

*snip*
I mean instead of trying to shut down things like last.fm why not try and make something better... take the concept, add in all the art properties they own (music videos, interviews/press releases/news messages/lyrics/cover art/cd booklet etc), make the service pay per use or monthly subscription or buy as you go along or whatever... at a price that is realistic... making people discover more of their artists buying more of their records and attending more of their concerts and events... giving the companies more money and the cost for individual artist to add to that would be tiny. Have things like playlists being shareable and make it really easy for you to get suggestions for songs or artists based on your selection of favorite artists etc....

Number of people pirating music in 2001: One gazillion.
Number of people pirating music after six years of lawsuits in 2007: One gazillion and two.
Number of people pirating music in 2009 after getting Spotify: Less. A lot less.

 

[Twerp128]

I'm not condoning the RIAA, I just don't care for this ridiculous view of the recording industry as some low-risk, high profit behemoth that goes around extorting money from and abusing these poor downloaders.

Steve Brookstein was the first winner of The X Factor in 2004. The first single debuted at #2 and went to #1. This was January.

He released an album in May which sold 250,000 copies and was #1 in the UK.

He never released a second single and was dropped in August.

And judging by the sales of his second album it was a damn good thing they dropped him.

 

[Dogbert]

this ridiculous view of the recording industry as some low-risk, high profit behemoth that goes around extorting money from and abusing these poor downloaders.

But that's the RIAA. Not the recording industry. The recording industry, as an entire entity, has largely moved on from the RIAA's position.

Low-risk? They thrive on low-risk. Name a time when an RIAA label took what could be perceived as a "risk" in the recording industry. They are, by definition, anti-risk.

High profit? Not anymore. Not since they still can't figure out (or don't care about) how to make money on anything but record sales. They've had since 2001 to figure out how to make money on things that aren't records, and knew their record sales were going to go down, and yet they're still complaining about how butthurt they are about record sales.

Extorting money? It's widely publicized that RIAA labels give the smallest share of record profits to artists, and keeps most of the profit for itself. Any quick google search on this will shed light on it.

Abusing poor downloaders? How do you think they got that reputation? You can't just get away with suing old ladies and teenagers for tens of thousands of dollars, and you definitely can't get away with losing as many cases (or extorting out-of-court settlements at the highway robbery claims they were making) as they did.

 

[Twerp128]

Low-risk? They thrive on low-risk. Name a time when an RIAA label took what could be perceived as a "risk" in the recording industry. They are, by definition, anti-risk.

Record labels are historically high risk, obviously they shoot for a diverse selection of potentially profitable bands but many don't produce. I thought it was common knowledge they lost money on most bands.

Extorting money? It's widely publicized that RIAA labels give the smallest share of record profits to artists, and keeps most of the profit for itself. Any quick google search on this will shed light on it.

And who signed the contract, no one held the a gun to the artists head. And all this profit isn't showing up in their quarterly reports?

Abusing poor downloaders? How do you think they got that reputation? You can't just get away with suing old ladies and teenagers for tens of thousands of dollars, and you definitely can't get away with losing as many cases (or extorting out-of-court settlements at the highway robbery claims they were making) as they did.

That is the RIAA, and that was pretty dispicable, that stunt they pulled with the, "for hire," copyright law was pretty low too.