Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
ts EMIs job to sell the radiohead catalogue that they control. That's what radiohead signed up to them for in the first place. why are we supposed to hate them for making a box set of their stuff to work in with the new album? Its business. its the same as all businesses, its there to make product in exchange for money.
Er, yeah, but you seemed to be employing that Radiohead were letting the side down by doing it differently. Should I feel guilty because no printers were troubled in the production of this blog?
-
If the musician doesn't believe in the value of their art how can you expect someone else to. So yeah, at some point I would rather only the people that value it enough to respect it with payment got it. if thats 5 people thats the way it is.
You missed my point.
Would you rather sell 50 copies and have no one pirate your release, or have 10,000 people pirate it and sell 500 copies?
-
true, they've personally done better cutting out all middle men etc, but the project as a whole has grossed far less,
So the fact that they've been able to use the network to connect directly with their audience is a bad thing? And do they really owe EMI anything after their former label climbed into the hype with a competing box set?
In Rainbows went to #1 in the US, UK and France, and #2 in New Zealand and various other countries --- without the downloads being eligible for the count. It has done very well indeed.
its also imporant to note that radiohead are in a far better position than most bands in that they have the money to record their own music to a high level, and set up the infra structure to do what they did. it may be a small cost to them but to most low level bands its out of their reach,
I think their advantage was more their fervent fan base than being able to cover the upfront cost. The download set-up would have cost less than a conventional marketing campaign.
Rob, I get the impression you'd rather sell five copies and have no one get your thing for free than sell 500 and wear a few freeloaders.
-
but all of those are exceptions to the rule and the radiohead example was a disturbing reflection on either them or their fans with 65% of them paying nothing a further 28% paying fuck all and only a handful paying market rate or showing them some respect.
Actually, 45% of the people who downloaded In Rainbows , or 1.2 million people, paid an average US$6 each. Radiohead netted nearly US$7 million from the downloads alone, and then sold a truckload of CDs via conventional retail channels and an unknown number of the fancy £40 box sets.
At this point, they've done far, far better from this record than any other album they've released.
-
Russell: glad to see someone taking the Press to task on this. That article really annoyed me.
The Press has a bit of a track record on Bebo-panic:
It's hard to tell, but I get the impression that Youthline's Stephen Bell hasn't been done any favours by the way he's been quoted. Either that or he's passing judgement on a website he hasn't seen and has no idea about.
-
WH is right Keith: public discourse on economics would be far better served if you wrote for the Herald and Bill Ralston was confined to commenting on Deborah Coddington's blog...
Giggle. But yes. Ralston can write well, but seems to be a disaster around anything that touches on economics. As you demonstrated Keith, that column was gibberish.
-
When you plug in your hard drive, try pressing Triangle then going to Display All. Then everything will be displayed.
It just worked! I thought everything was right before, but thanks ...
Playback is better than the 360, and of course it's quieter.
-
I know in the US you can sue (and presumably win - one can *try* and sue for anything) if somebody uses a photograph for commercial purposes without a model release. But NZ?
From what I can tell the T&Cs require the photographer to indemnify Yahoo!Xtra. So if that dumb but amusing picture of cousin turns up on a billboard, and he's get angry, it's your problem.
Participating in the billboard thing is voluntary. But it also seems predatory. Yahoo!Xtra does not need to take your copyrights.
-
it was a short sighted and massive mistake to share mediums with computer data in the first place. it all might have played out a lot differently if every computer didn't have a drive that also read CDs.
and you're right, you most likely could just play the new medium into your computer and capture it that way, but that's one generation, real time play back capture and maybe just enough of a hassle for the average joe to not be bothered. hard core piraters like finn and techno heads like myself will of course find ways around it but many people probably won't.
Protecting the status quo by making technology that doesn't work properly? That's always been successful ...
The large majority of CD-ripping isn't done in aid of piracy, it's done by people who want to listen to music they've paid for on their iPods.
-
but Obama has been comparing himself to Reagan. That is not a lie. It's a deliberate strategy on his part.
But that's not what the ad says or does. As the text quoted by Craig demonstrates, it deliberately misrepresents a direct quote. It's not even subtle. They've just cut off the sentence.
They actually started on this line before the ads ran. Check this:
Hillary Clinton, Jan 18:
"My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years."
Bill Clinton, Jan 18:
"(My wife's) principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks."
Trouble is, he didn't say that. I think there's an ugly sense of entitlement showing up in the Clinton campaign.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 … 2279 Older→ First