main problem that Goldman raises is a question of size: 'too big to
fail.' In some markets, they have a significant fraction of trades. Why
is that important? They trade both on their proprietary desk and on
behalf of customers. When you do that and you have a significant
fraction of all trades, you have a lot of information."
Further,
he says, "That raises the potential of conflicts of interest, problems
of front-running, using that inside information for your proprietary
desk. And that's why the Volcker report came out and said that we need
to restrict the kinds of activity that these large institutions have.
If you're going to trade on behalf of others, if you're going to be a
commercial bank, you can't engage in certain kinds of risk-taking
behavior."
The giants (especially Goldman Sachs) have also used high-frequency program trading which not only distorted the markets
- making up more than 70% of stock trades - but which also let the
program trading giants take a sneak peak at what the real (aka “human”)
traders are buying and selling, and then trade on the insider
information. See this, this, this, this and this. (This is frontrunning,
which is illegal; but it is a lot bigger than garden variety
frontrunning, because the program traders are not only trading based on
inside knowledge of what their own clients are doing, they are also
trading based on knowledge of what all other traders are doing).
Goldman also admitted
that its proprietary trading program can "manipulate the markets in
unfair ways". The giant banks have also allegedly used their Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) to exchange secret information and formulate coordinated mutually beneficial actions, all with the government's blessings.
In addition, the giants receive many billions in subsidies
by receiving government guarantees that they are "too big to fail",
ensuring that they have to pay lower interest rates to attract
depositors.
Derivatives
The government's failure to
rein in derivatives or break up the giant banks also constitute
enormous subsidies, as it allows the giants to make huge sums by
keeping the true price points of their derivatives secret. See this and this.
Toxic Assets
The PPIP program - which was supposed to reduce the toxic assets held by banks - actually increased them, and just let the banks make a quick buck.
In
addition, the government suspended mark-to-market valuation of the
toxic assets held by the giant banks, and is allowing the banks to value
the assets at whatever price they desire. This constitutes a huge
giveaway to the big banks.
As one writer notes:
Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?
from the please-explain dept
A few months back a columnist for the Guardian, Helienne Lindvall wrote a laughably confused argument claiming that people who explained how "free" was an important element of a business model should not be trusted because they also made money. That made no sense, and lots of people explained why. She also got an awful lot of the basic facts wrong.
Lindvall is back, and rather than admitting her mistakes, she tries again, but comes across as even more confused and factually-challenged. The majority of the piece is about setting up more strawmen to knock over, with the two key ones being (1) that supporters of embracing new business models are "defeatist" because they suggest that file sharing cannot be stopped and (2) that while record labels may have ripped off musicians in the past, the companies ripping off musicians today are the "web 2.0" companies that are making money on content -- such as Google, Flickr and others.
Neither argument makes much sense when held up to any scrutiny. Lindvall seems to make the same mistake she made in her first piece (for which, I do not believe she has yet apologized). She takes a tiny part of an argument that someone has made, and pretends it's the entire argument. Just like she claimed that those who embrace free as a part of their business model are somehow being hypocritical in making money elsewhere, she now claims that people's entire argument is based on a tiny sliver of their argument, and ignores the important part.
The problem with her first strawman is that people aren't saying be "defeatist," and just accept that file sharing is file sharing and give up. They're saying that if file sharing isn't going away, and (here's the part she misses) you can use that to your advantage to make more money, why bother worrying about file sharing as being some sort of evil? The second strawman is a bit more nefarious, but goes back to the fallacy that web 2.0 sites are some sort of digital sharecropping, with the users "giving up everything," and the content creators getting nothing. That, of course, is hogwash. The reason people use these services is that they get something in return. What people like Lindvall forget or ignore is that in the days before YouTube, if you wanted to post your own video, you had to (a) buy expensive media serving software from the likes of Real Networks (b) install the crappy software and maintain it (c) host the files yourself, costing you server space (d) stream or download the files yourself, costing bandwidth. Then YouTube came along and made all of that both easy and free -- and you still want to complain that they're ripping you off? Seriously?
Fine: let's make a deal. For any project that Helienne Lindvall is involved in, she cannot make use of these tools which offer free services. Instead, she must set up the technology on her own server, and host and pay for all of it herself. Otherwise, she's just supporting the digital sharecroppers, right?
There are a few other whoppers in the article as well, such as this one:
Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.
Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.
I love the "but we're different!" argument, because it comes up in every industry. I was just in Hollywood, where I explained how musicians were actually making use of these models and someone got upset and said "but we're the movie industry, and we're different!" Earlier this year, I met with a publisher, who also was looking at these models, and again exclaimed that "but book publishing is different!" Everyone wants to believe they're different, but everyone faces the same basic economics. Also, I'd imagine that my friends in the publishing industry would be pretty upset with Lindvall's false claim that a book is not a team effort. You have publishers and editors and agents, all of whom often take on quite similar roles to producers and songwriters and engineers.
That said, the really ridiculous part of her complaint here is that the same people she complains don't earn money from merchandise or touring also don't earn money from record sale royalties for the most part. There are some exceptions, but most of them are paid a flat-fee for their work, and that doesn't change either way under the new models, so her complaint here doesn't make sense. If a content creator can make money giving away some works for free, they can still afford to pay the fees for those who help out. The entire argument that an engineer "doesn't tour" is specious. The engineer doesn't make money from CD sales either.
Finally. Lindvall must be the first person to describe Jaron Lanier as an optimist, since he came out with his incredibly pessimistic book about how the internet was destroying everything good and holy in the world.
33 Comments | Leave a Comment..
free advertising enlargementProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
advertising enlargement drugsProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
homeProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
dobench craft company rip off pills workProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
bench craft company rip off pill reviewProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
roaringtiger.com
"The
main problem that Goldman raises is a question of size: 'too big to
fail.' In some markets, they have a significant fraction of trades. Why
is that important? They trade both on their proprietary desk and on
behalf of customers. When you do that and you have a significant
fraction of all trades, you have a lot of information."
Further,
he says, "That raises the potential of conflicts of interest, problems
of front-running, using that inside information for your proprietary
desk. And that's why the Volcker report came out and said that we need
to restrict the kinds of activity that these large institutions have.
If you're going to trade on behalf of others, if you're going to be a
commercial bank, you can't engage in certain kinds of risk-taking
behavior."
The giants (especially Goldman Sachs) have also used high-frequency program trading which not only distorted the markets
- making up more than 70% of stock trades - but which also let the
program trading giants take a sneak peak at what the real (aka “human”)
traders are buying and selling, and then trade on the insider
information. See this, this, this, this and this. (This is frontrunning,
which is illegal; but it is a lot bigger than garden variety
frontrunning, because the program traders are not only trading based on
inside knowledge of what their own clients are doing, they are also
trading based on knowledge of what all other traders are doing).
Goldman also admitted
that its proprietary trading program can "manipulate the markets in
unfair ways". The giant banks have also allegedly used their Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) to exchange secret information and formulate coordinated mutually beneficial actions, all with the government's blessings.
In addition, the giants receive many billions in subsidies
by receiving government guarantees that they are "too big to fail",
ensuring that they have to pay lower interest rates to attract
depositors.
Derivatives
The government's failure to
rein in derivatives or break up the giant banks also constitute
enormous subsidies, as it allows the giants to make huge sums by
keeping the true price points of their derivatives secret. See this and this.
Toxic Assets
The PPIP program - which was supposed to reduce the toxic assets held by banks - actually increased them, and just let the banks make a quick buck.
In
addition, the government suspended mark-to-market valuation of the
toxic assets held by the giant banks, and is allowing the banks to value
the assets at whatever price they desire. This constitutes a huge
giveaway to the big banks.
As one writer notes:
Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?
from the please-explain dept
A few months back a columnist for the Guardian, Helienne Lindvall wrote a laughably confused argument claiming that people who explained how "free" was an important element of a business model should not be trusted because they also made money. That made no sense, and lots of people explained why. She also got an awful lot of the basic facts wrong.
Lindvall is back, and rather than admitting her mistakes, she tries again, but comes across as even more confused and factually-challenged. The majority of the piece is about setting up more strawmen to knock over, with the two key ones being (1) that supporters of embracing new business models are "defeatist" because they suggest that file sharing cannot be stopped and (2) that while record labels may have ripped off musicians in the past, the companies ripping off musicians today are the "web 2.0" companies that are making money on content -- such as Google, Flickr and others.
Neither argument makes much sense when held up to any scrutiny. Lindvall seems to make the same mistake she made in her first piece (for which, I do not believe she has yet apologized). She takes a tiny part of an argument that someone has made, and pretends it's the entire argument. Just like she claimed that those who embrace free as a part of their business model are somehow being hypocritical in making money elsewhere, she now claims that people's entire argument is based on a tiny sliver of their argument, and ignores the important part.
The problem with her first strawman is that people aren't saying be "defeatist," and just accept that file sharing is file sharing and give up. They're saying that if file sharing isn't going away, and (here's the part she misses) you can use that to your advantage to make more money, why bother worrying about file sharing as being some sort of evil? The second strawman is a bit more nefarious, but goes back to the fallacy that web 2.0 sites are some sort of digital sharecropping, with the users "giving up everything," and the content creators getting nothing. That, of course, is hogwash. The reason people use these services is that they get something in return. What people like Lindvall forget or ignore is that in the days before YouTube, if you wanted to post your own video, you had to (a) buy expensive media serving software from the likes of Real Networks (b) install the crappy software and maintain it (c) host the files yourself, costing you server space (d) stream or download the files yourself, costing bandwidth. Then YouTube came along and made all of that both easy and free -- and you still want to complain that they're ripping you off? Seriously?
Fine: let's make a deal. For any project that Helienne Lindvall is involved in, she cannot make use of these tools which offer free services. Instead, she must set up the technology on her own server, and host and pay for all of it herself. Otherwise, she's just supporting the digital sharecroppers, right?
There are a few other whoppers in the article as well, such as this one:
Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.
Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.
I love the "but we're different!" argument, because it comes up in every industry. I was just in Hollywood, where I explained how musicians were actually making use of these models and someone got upset and said "but we're the movie industry, and we're different!" Earlier this year, I met with a publisher, who also was looking at these models, and again exclaimed that "but book publishing is different!" Everyone wants to believe they're different, but everyone faces the same basic economics. Also, I'd imagine that my friends in the publishing industry would be pretty upset with Lindvall's false claim that a book is not a team effort. You have publishers and editors and agents, all of whom often take on quite similar roles to producers and songwriters and engineers.
That said, the really ridiculous part of her complaint here is that the same people she complains don't earn money from merchandise or touring also don't earn money from record sale royalties for the most part. There are some exceptions, but most of them are paid a flat-fee for their work, and that doesn't change either way under the new models, so her complaint here doesn't make sense. If a content creator can make money giving away some works for free, they can still afford to pay the fees for those who help out. The entire argument that an engineer "doesn't tour" is specious. The engineer doesn't make money from CD sales either.
Finally. Lindvall must be the first person to describe Jaron Lanier as an optimist, since he came out with his incredibly pessimistic book about how the internet was destroying everything good and holy in the world.
33 Comments | Leave a Comment..
bench craft company rip off pills reviewsProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
www.ddfghhdfxd.com/Probably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
ddfghhdfxdProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
advertising enlargement herbsProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
uriProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
allbench craft company rip offProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
bench craft company rip off’s avatar
"The
main problem that Goldman raises is a question of size: 'too big to
fail.' In some markets, they have a significant fraction of trades. Why
is that important? They trade both on their proprietary desk and on
behalf of customers. When you do that and you have a significant
fraction of all trades, you have a lot of information."
Further,
he says, "That raises the potential of conflicts of interest, problems
of front-running, using that inside information for your proprietary
desk. And that's why the Volcker report came out and said that we need
to restrict the kinds of activity that these large institutions have.
If you're going to trade on behalf of others, if you're going to be a
commercial bank, you can't engage in certain kinds of risk-taking
behavior."
The giants (especially Goldman Sachs) have also used high-frequency program trading which not only distorted the markets
- making up more than 70% of stock trades - but which also let the
program trading giants take a sneak peak at what the real (aka “human”)
traders are buying and selling, and then trade on the insider
information. See this, this, this, this and this. (This is frontrunning,
which is illegal; but it is a lot bigger than garden variety
frontrunning, because the program traders are not only trading based on
inside knowledge of what their own clients are doing, they are also
trading based on knowledge of what all other traders are doing).
Goldman also admitted
that its proprietary trading program can "manipulate the markets in
unfair ways". The giant banks have also allegedly used their Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) to exchange secret information and formulate coordinated mutually beneficial actions, all with the government's blessings.
In addition, the giants receive many billions in subsidies
by receiving government guarantees that they are "too big to fail",
ensuring that they have to pay lower interest rates to attract
depositors.
Derivatives
The government's failure to
rein in derivatives or break up the giant banks also constitute
enormous subsidies, as it allows the giants to make huge sums by
keeping the true price points of their derivatives secret. See this and this.
Toxic Assets
The PPIP program - which was supposed to reduce the toxic assets held by banks - actually increased them, and just let the banks make a quick buck.
In
addition, the government suspended mark-to-market valuation of the
toxic assets held by the giant banks, and is allowing the banks to value
the assets at whatever price they desire. This constitutes a huge
giveaway to the big banks.
As one writer notes:
Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?
from the please-explain dept
A few months back a columnist for the Guardian, Helienne Lindvall wrote a laughably confused argument claiming that people who explained how "free" was an important element of a business model should not be trusted because they also made money. That made no sense, and lots of people explained why. She also got an awful lot of the basic facts wrong.
Lindvall is back, and rather than admitting her mistakes, she tries again, but comes across as even more confused and factually-challenged. The majority of the piece is about setting up more strawmen to knock over, with the two key ones being (1) that supporters of embracing new business models are "defeatist" because they suggest that file sharing cannot be stopped and (2) that while record labels may have ripped off musicians in the past, the companies ripping off musicians today are the "web 2.0" companies that are making money on content -- such as Google, Flickr and others.
Neither argument makes much sense when held up to any scrutiny. Lindvall seems to make the same mistake she made in her first piece (for which, I do not believe she has yet apologized). She takes a tiny part of an argument that someone has made, and pretends it's the entire argument. Just like she claimed that those who embrace free as a part of their business model are somehow being hypocritical in making money elsewhere, she now claims that people's entire argument is based on a tiny sliver of their argument, and ignores the important part.
The problem with her first strawman is that people aren't saying be "defeatist," and just accept that file sharing is file sharing and give up. They're saying that if file sharing isn't going away, and (here's the part she misses) you can use that to your advantage to make more money, why bother worrying about file sharing as being some sort of evil? The second strawman is a bit more nefarious, but goes back to the fallacy that web 2.0 sites are some sort of digital sharecropping, with the users "giving up everything," and the content creators getting nothing. That, of course, is hogwash. The reason people use these services is that they get something in return. What people like Lindvall forget or ignore is that in the days before YouTube, if you wanted to post your own video, you had to (a) buy expensive media serving software from the likes of Real Networks (b) install the crappy software and maintain it (c) host the files yourself, costing you server space (d) stream or download the files yourself, costing bandwidth. Then YouTube came along and made all of that both easy and free -- and you still want to complain that they're ripping you off? Seriously?
Fine: let's make a deal. For any project that Helienne Lindvall is involved in, she cannot make use of these tools which offer free services. Instead, she must set up the technology on her own server, and host and pay for all of it herself. Otherwise, she's just supporting the digital sharecroppers, right?
There are a few other whoppers in the article as well, such as this one:
Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.
Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.
I love the "but we're different!" argument, because it comes up in every industry. I was just in Hollywood, where I explained how musicians were actually making use of these models and someone got upset and said "but we're the movie industry, and we're different!" Earlier this year, I met with a publisher, who also was looking at these models, and again exclaimed that "but book publishing is different!" Everyone wants to believe they're different, but everyone faces the same basic economics. Also, I'd imagine that my friends in the publishing industry would be pretty upset with Lindvall's false claim that a book is not a team effort. You have publishers and editors and agents, all of whom often take on quite similar roles to producers and songwriters and engineers.
That said, the really ridiculous part of her complaint here is that the same people she complains don't earn money from merchandise or touring also don't earn money from record sale royalties for the most part. There are some exceptions, but most of them are paid a flat-fee for their work, and that doesn't change either way under the new models, so her complaint here doesn't make sense. If a content creator can make money giving away some works for free, they can still afford to pay the fees for those who help out. The entire argument that an engineer "doesn't tour" is specious. The engineer doesn't make money from CD sales either.
Finally. Lindvall must be the first person to describe Jaron Lanier as an optimist, since he came out with his incredibly pessimistic book about how the internet was destroying everything good and holy in the world.
33 Comments | Leave a Comment..
advertising enlargement stretcherProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
bench craft company rip off secretsProbably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
- h p -Probably Bad <b>News</b>: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL - Epic Fail <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Crime Scene Investigators FAIL.
Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note
Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader <b>...</b>
Adobe releases Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3 & Lens Profile Downloader: Adobe has released Photoshop Lightroom 3.3, Camera Raw 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. These are final versions of updates that were originally posted as 'release candidates' ...
bench craft company rip off system
No comments:
Post a Comment