Comments on: Piracy Kills Eastside Hockey Manager?

By: aaa

aaa — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:36:50 +0000

This whole article is not saying the whole truth…Altough hacked version was distributed via torrents, the game was still not cracked, so everybody who downloaded it without licence played 6 months and than stoped. So I do not think that poor sales were caused only by torrents.

By: aaa

aaa — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:36:50 +0000

By: Rikki Nipplez

Rikki Nipplez — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:39:38 +0000

ha!

By: Rikki Nipplez

Rikki Nipplez — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:39:38 +0000

ha!

By: Jack McGee

Jack McGee — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:34:51 +0000

They are his articles, Noel. He has the right to respond or not respond to whomever he wishes. Including the right to not respond to you if he wants! So quit crying allready.

By: Jack McGee

Jack McGee — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:34:51 +0000

They are his articles, Noel. He has the right to respond or not respond to whomever he wishes. Including the right to not respond to you if he wants! So quit crying allready.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:13:46 +0000

Review previous posts on TLF and count the number of times Tim utters the phrase “hierarchical beauracracies,” uses multiple meanings of “monopoly” in the same sentence, refuses to reply substantively to questions about his posts and criticizes someone’s article or paper by calling it something, well, uncalled for. It seems like Tim may be the PR guy in Doug’s article:)

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:13:46 +0000

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:08:43 +0000

Tim,

I give you much kudos for your tolerance of posters who put so much effort into drawing you into cul-de-sacs of pseudo-intellectual battle on pretty much every post you've ever written here. It's nutty, and you're much kinder than I would be;)

At any rate, to Charles point, doing "Primer" for $10k is an exercise in futility, and I'll tell you why. I've made a lot of short films, and one both features for, ok, to be honest, close to $100k each.

Here's the kicker, that was a $100k where NOBODY got paid to work on the films, save for some money, very meager money, to the actors because SAG requires you to pay actors before you can sign a deal with anyone to sell your movie - regardless of whether your selling the movie for enough to cover those "due in full" salaries to the actors, which currently clock in at a base salary of around $700 per day, per actor, that's if there's no overtime or "meal penalties. EVERYONE else on the movie worked for free for what we call "deferred" salary - meaning if the film ever makes it's money back in full, we'll pay everyone who worked on it for their time. Now, we're actually going to get to do that on our last film, which is awesome, and VERY rare, but it'll have taken 3 years after it was shot to do so.

Then you have to rent or buy your cameras, your tape stock (or hard drives) your editorial computer, your sound mixing gear - and to sell the damn thing, all the promo you do to the industry itself, and then the QC and mastering. We had to spend $14,000 just in Quality Control reports so that we could sell the films. Otherwise, no go.

Then you have to create fully separate sound mixes with no English dialogue (called Music & Effects, or M&E mixes) for foreign sales too, otherwise, you'll get none of that either.

Primer, for $10k, maybe what they shot it for, but that would be with lots of friends and family working for free, over some months or years I would guess, and doesn't include any actual post-production costs.

That does not, a viable business, nor even a living, make:)

Not saying I need to make millions, because I don't expect that, but a living wage is good. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of people in our business don't get any health care coverage at all, unless they're the select, select few who do enough union work each year to qualify for that. I'm not a union supporter either for the most part, but at the same time...well, they do provide somethings of value to their workers that our business is terrible about providing for.

Oh, and Doug, thanks for the kind words:)

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:08:43 +0000

Tim,

I give you much kudos for your tolerance of posters who put so much effort into drawing you into cul-de-sacs of pseudo-intellectual battle on pretty much every post you've ever written here. It's nutty, and you're much kinder than I would be;)

At any rate, to Charles point, doing "Primer" for $10k is an exercise in futility, and I'll tell you why. I've made a lot of short films, and one both features for, ok, to be honest, close to $100k each.

Here's the kicker, that was a $100k where NOBODY got paid to work on the films, save for some money, very meager money, to the actors because SAG requires you to pay actors before you can sign a deal with anyone to sell your movie - regardless of whether your selling the movie for enough to cover those "due in full" salaries to the actors, which currently clock in at a base salary of around $700 per day, per actor, that's if there's no overtime or "meal penalties. EVERYONE else on the movie worked for free for what we call "deferred" salary - meaning if the film ever makes it's money back in full, we'll pay everyone who worked on it for their time. Now, we're actually going to get to do that on our last film, which is awesome, and VERY rare, but it'll have taken 3 years after it was shot to do so.

Then you have to rent or buy your cameras, your tape stock (or hard drives) your editorial computer, your sound mixing gear - and to sell the damn thing, all the promo you do to the industry itself, and then the QC and mastering. We had to spend $14,000 just in Quality Control reports so that we could sell the films. Otherwise, no go.

Then you have to create fully separate sound mixes with no English dialogue (called Music & Effects, or M&E; mixes) for foreign sales too, otherwise, you'll get none of that either.

Primer, for $10k, maybe what they shot it for, but that would be with lots of friends and family working for free, over some months or years I would guess, and doesn't include any actual post-production costs.

That does not, a viable business, nor even a living, make:)

Not saying I need to make millions, because I don't expect that, but a living wage is good. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of people in our business don't get any health care coverage at all, unless they're the select, select few who do enough union work each year to qualify for that. I'm not a union supporter either for the most part, but at the same time...well, they do provide somethings of value to their workers that our business is terrible about providing for.

Oh, and Doug, thanks for the kind words:)

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:08:08 +0000

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:08:08 +0000

Tim,

I give you much kudos for your tolerance of posters who put so much effort into drawing you into cul-de-sacs of pseudo-intellectual battle on pretty much every post you've ever written here. It's nutty, and you're much kinder than I would be;)

At any rate, to Charles point, doing "Primer" for $10k is an exercise in futility, and I'll tell you why. I've made a lot of short films, and one both features for, ok, to be honest, close to $100k each.

Here's the kicker, that was a $100k where NOBODY got paid to work on the films, save for some money, very meager money, to the actors because SAG requires you to pay actors before you can sign a deal with anyone to sell your movie - regardless of whether your selling the movie for enough to cover those "due in full" salaries to the actors, which currently clock in at a base salary of around $700 per day, per actor, that's if there's no overtime or "meal penalties. EVERYONE else on the movie worked for free for what we call "deferred" salary - meaning if the film ever makes it's money back in full, we'll pay everyone who worked on it for their time. Now, we're actually going to get to do that on our last film, which is awesome, and VERY rare, but it'll have taken 3 years after it was shot to do so.

Then you have to rent or buy your cameras, your tape stock (or hard drives) your editorial computer, your sound mixing gear - and to sell the damn thing, all the promo you do to the industry itself, and then the QC and mastering. We had to spend $14,000 just in Quality Control reports so that we could sell the films. Otherwise, no go.

Then you have to create fully separate sound mixes with no English dialogue (called Music & Effects, or M&E; mixes) for foreign sales too, otherwise, you'll get none of that either.

Primer, for $10k, maybe what they shot it for, but that would be with lots of friends and family working for free, over some months or years I would guess, and doesn't include any actual post-production costs.

That does not, a viable business, nor even a living, make:)

Not saying I need to make millions, because I don't expect that, but a living wage is good. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of people in our business don't get any health care coverage at all, unless they're the select, select few who do enough union work each year to qualify for that. I'm not a union supporter either for the most part, but at the same time...well, they do provide somethings of value to their workers that our business is terrible about providing for.

Oh, and Doug, thanks for the kind words:)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:30:52 +0000

Doug is right. DNFTEC.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:30:52 +0000

Doug is right. DNFTEC.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:58:20 +0000

Tim, you want to take away musicians' current online revenue stream, and your proposals for alternatives are just plain weird.

First, you try to argue that the sales of musical instruments and music lessons shows the "music industry" doing well (by doing this you switched away from the core copyright music industry).

Second, you say that people make music for fun, and thus copyright is not necessary for the music industry (here, you fall into the fallacy of direct and causal 1-1 relationships between policy and real world phenomena).

Third, you follow some logic that generalizes every possible avenue of revenue, not taking into consideration either proportion or musicians' interest (so ToGo or whatever they are called give songs away for free, every musician does to some extent, but you want to build an entire industry on this).

Tell me if you were being serious, if not, I'll stop the criticism. And why are you attacking DRM and the DMCA to begin with? To protect your freedom to tinker? Because there is some regulatory effect on tinkering, even though there is no proven effect that DRM and the DMCA result in any substantial curb innovation.

My prior statements were correct.

And look, you STILL don't address my question about how repealing the DMCA will affect not only musicians but other copyright onwers in the online environment.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:58:20 +0000

Tim, you want to take away musicians' current online revenue stream, and your proposals for alternatives are just plain weird.

First, you try to argue that the sales of musical instruments and music lessons shows the "music industry" doing well (by doing this you switched away from the core copyright music industry).

Second, you say that people make music for fun, and thus copyright is not necessary for the music industry (here, you fall into the fallacy of direct and causal 1-1 relationships between policy and real world phenomena).

Third, you follow some logic that generalizes every possible avenue of revenue, not taking into consideration either proportion or musicians' interest (so ToGo or whatever they are called give songs away for free, every musician does to some extent, but you want to build an entire industry on this).

Tell me if you were being serious, if not, I'll stop the criticism. And why are you attacking DRM and the DMCA to begin with? To protect your freedom to tinker? Because there is some regulatory effect on tinkering, even though there is no proven effect that DRM and the DMCA result in any substantial curb innovation.

My prior statements were correct.

And look, you STILL don't address my question about how repealing the DMCA will affect not only musicians but other copyright onwers in the online environment.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:38:15 +0000

Noel, none of that changes the fact that you misrepresented my views when you said I’m against musicians charging money for their music or maximizing their revenues. You keep changing the subject to avoid admitting that you made a mistake. Frankly, I’m getting tired of this, so unless you want to acknowledge that your prior statements were false, I’m done with this discussion.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:38:15 +0000

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:09:15 +0000

You never address my questions when I pose them, and I'm not going to search TLF for those posts. Rather, it would be great for you to clarify your views here. I mean, look above, I asked you how you can shape policy that takes away copyright privileges for musicians but not makers of ebooks, movies and games; and you didn't reply.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:09:15 +0000

Tim, you've suggested that IP firms should be called patent trolls, advocated the downfall of the Hollywood studios, call corporations hierarchical beauracracies (whatever that means). You even predicted the demise of the softare industry as it is, with all software being created through peer-production- and your policy recommendations aim to support this delusion. I can go on.

You never address my questions when I pose them, and I'm not going to search TLF for those posts. Rather, it would be great for you to clarify your views here. I mean, look above, I asked you how you can shape policy that takes away copyright privileges for musicians but not makers of ebooks, movies and games; and you didn't reply.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:55:30 +0000

I make "frequent barbs" at companies that advocate policies I disagree with. That's the way politics work. That doesn't make me an enemy of markets or private companies.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:55:30 +0000

Noel, I'm getting tired of you misrepresenting my views and then backpedaling when I call you on it. Again, I've never criticized companies for wanting to make money. Nor have I criticized artists for charging money for their music. I have suggested that giving away music could be in the self-interest of many musicians. (and some of them agree with me).

I make "frequent barbs" at companies that advocate policies I disagree with. That's the way politics work. That doesn't make me an enemy of markets or private companies.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:40:10 +0000

You criticize DRM because it does not benefit artists?! What...

I'm not going to search through TLF for citations, although its pretty hysterically obvious your frequent barbs at profit making entities that don't reflect your style of libertarianism.

In any case, you criticize DRM because it does not benefit you, Tim. You're hardly concerned with artists, because you want them to sell music lessons rather than songs over the Internet to make money. It seems like you want to tinker with Internet technologies at the cost of a large industrial segment, but don't want others to benefit the same way from technological progress.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:40:10 +0000

You criticize DRM because it does not benefit artists?! What...

I'm not going to search through TLF for citations, although its pretty hysterically obvious your frequent barbs at profit making entities that don't reflect your style of libertarianism.

In any case, you criticize DRM because it does not benefit you, Tim. You're hardly concerned with artists, because you want them to sell music lessons rather than songs over the Internet to make money. It seems like you want to tinker with Internet technologies at the cost of a large industrial segment, but don't want others to benefit the same way from technological progress.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:20:47 +0000

you criticize them for following their self interest now: trying to maximize their profits (as if thats a bad thing) and leveraging DRM.

Care to provide a citation? I don't remember saying any such thing. I criticize the use of DRM largely because it doesn't benefit artists.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:20:47 +0000

you criticize them for following their self interest now: trying to maximize their profits (as if thats a bad thing) and leveraging DRM.

Care to provide a citation? I don't remember saying any such thing. I criticize the use of DRM largely because it doesn't benefit artists.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:00:23 +0000

I have not distorted your views Tim. Rather, if you don't clarify them, then they may be misinterpreted. So its better to address my questions.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:00:23 +0000

Tim, why do you predict that musicians will follow their own interest with your "virtuous" model of business, when you criticize them for following their self interest now: trying to maximize their profits (as if thats a bad thing) and leveraging DRM. Oh, you only want musicians to follow their interest when it suits your interest:)

I have not distorted your views Tim. Rather, if you don't clarify them, then they may be misinterpreted. So its better to address my questions.

By: Doug Lay

Doug Lay — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:49:16 +0000

Tim:

The chances of Noel ceasing with the distortions of your views because you ask nicely are virtually zero. Distorting your views and keeping you on the defensive are what he gets paid for (albeit not very well, I’m sure).

This article should be instructive:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445347a.html

By: Doug Lay

Doug Lay — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:49:16 +0000

Tim:

The chances of Noel ceasing with the distortions of your views because you ask nicely are virtually zero. Distorting your views and keeping you on the defensive are what he gets paid for (albeit not very well, I'm sure).

This article should be instructive:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445...