>> People pay thousands of pounds to have their advert on radio.
>
> OK, but that still only works out to a few pennies per day over the
> duration that the advert plays for.

A quick google states a price of 1000 pounds per week to advertise on a 
large regional station.  Given they probably have 20 or so different 
adverts that equates to an income of 20k per week for the station.

> (More to the point, what adverts they do play inevitably sound very
> cheap and amateurish. Not at all like the slick, polished adverts that
> constantly bombard you on TV. Presumably advertising on radio is much
> cheaper than TV -

That same site I found above also mentioned you should spend about 10% 
of your budget on actually making the advert (presumably 90% on 
advertising fees to the station).

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 10:22 AM, scott wrote:
>>> People pay thousands of pounds to have their advert on radio.
>>
>> OK, but that still only works out to a few pennies per day over the
>> duration that the advert plays for.
>
> A quick google states a price of 1000 pounds per week to advertise on a
> large regional station. Given they probably have 20 or so different
> adverts that equates to an income of 20k per week for the station.

Interesting. I can't begin to imagine how Dave's Kebab Shop has anywhere 
near £1000 a week to blow on ineffective advertising, but anyway... I'm 
still left wondering whether £20k per week would go anywhere near 
covering the total running costs of a radio station.

> That same site I found above also mentioned you should spend about 10%
> of your budget on actually making the advert (presumably 90% on
> advertising fees to the station).

Seems reasonable. You're only going to make it once, but presumably play 
it a whole lot...

Post a reply to this message

On 24-1-2011 10:26, Invisible wrote:
> On 22/01/2011 10:48 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>> There is also the problem of finding an artist if I don't yet know
>> her/him. What seems to be missing from the whole IP debate is the role
>> of the person that recommends the music/book/fashion. These people are
>> vital, but how do we pay them for sifting through the bulk of mediocre
>> stuff?
>
> Yeah, there is the argument that by "illegally" showing people music or
> whatever that they didn't pay for, they might well go out and buy a copy
> themselves.

That is not what I meant. I meant DJ's (the old fashioned ones that know 
what they play in stead of just working from a play list) and record 
shop owners. The ideal model for the latter is that
- you come into the shop
- they either know you or you tell them what sort of music you like
- they recommend some music to try.
- they play you some examples
- you make a selection from their recommendations
- you buy those
- they get a commission
- everybody happy

(Yes, I know a shop that works that way. Even to the extend that I can 
tell people that want to give me a present (happens about once a year) 
to go there and tell it is for me).

That is a model that should also work on the internet (and not only for 
records but also for books and fashion), yet I have the feeling that it 
won't. The commission is the most likely problem. That should come from 
the record company and I don't see that happening. But if it is paid by 
the customer, they will take the advise and buy on amazon.
Related to that. Last year I was helping out at a concert in Alkmaar 
(http://www.leidsekoorboeken.nl/en/the-project/the-leiden-choirbooks-eng.html) 
part of what we did was selling the CD's. You could also buy them at the 
internet in a big store, where they were cheaper than what the group had 
to pay themselves to sell them to the audience. To cite someone: WTF?


> I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for
> me, that's illegal. But if I turn on my radio and listen to the exact
> same music, that's completely legal. Either way it costs me nothing, and
> it's the exact same music. WTF?

One difference is that on the radio you hear it once with some talking 
over in general, whereas from your friend you get the entire thing to keep.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2011 1:42 AM, scott wrote:
>>> A good example is the adverts before a film on a DVD that you are forced
>>> to watch. A cracked copy will usually cut out the adverts, and some
>>> people would say it is doing no harm by doing that themselves for their
>>> own personal use. But, the fact that the adverts cannot be skipped is
>>> actually creating income for the publisher, without them they'd need to
>>> charge more for the DVD in the first place.
>>>
>> This is funnier than hell. You do realize that 100% of those
>> advertisement are for products *produced* by the same company that you
>> bought the DVD from? Who are they losing revenue from if you remove
>> them, themselves?
>
>> Sure, you "might" see something you want to buy later,
>
> You seemed to answer your own question.
Not really, because if I was interested in buying something else there 
are myriad other ways to find it, without having to run through 10 
minutes of crap, before getting to the movie. This was way worse on 
VCRs, and some bozos actually attempted to pass legislation that would 
have *required* DVD players to not allow you to bypass them at all. It 
didn't take long for them to figure out this would be a death knell, 
based on the consumer reaction to the 1-2 companies that initially tried 
to do it, by coding the disc so that the adverts where in the same 
segment as the FBI warning (which you can't skip). Even the courts where 
not too amused at those sorts of "demands" about whether or not 
commercials should be skippable, manually or otherwise. Though.. I am 
not sure how the cases ended up with respect to ones that did it 
automatically for you. They just didn't always work so well, so fell out 
of favor, I think.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 5:30 PM, andrel wrote:
> (Yes, I know a shop that works that way. Even to the extend that I can
> tell people that want to give me a present (happens about once a year)
> to go there and tell it is for me).

LOL “I’d like to buy a record for that weird PovRay guy.” ;-)

You’re lucky to have such a nice shop, BTW.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2011 2:45 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Basically, the music and film industry depends on it being possible to
>> make copies but not cheap to make copies.
>
> And now those assumptions have been brutally violated. You say the
> industry needs to "deal with that", but I'm really not sure where that
> leaves us. The only obvious solution is to just not sell content for
> money any more, since the model isn't workable. (This of course leads
> directly to high quality content no longer being made, which would be
> very sad.)
>
>>> But then of course, the publishers think "OK, well if we embed this
>>> computer program, we can stop people copying it". (Actually no, no you
>>> cannot. But the CEO probably isn't smart enough to comprehend this.)
>>
>> Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security
>> theater.
>
> What's TSA?
>
>>> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their
>>> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1
>>> being "it doesn't work".)
>>
>> The real reason it doesn't work is that you only have to break it once.
>> Once someone takes the copy protection off, they can distribute the
>> broken version. So the DRM has to keep out the *smartest* attackers, not
>> just the average attackers.
>
> The other reason is that you *must* take the DRM off to use the thing.
> No matter which way the image data is encrypted, you /must/ decrypt it
> in order to see it. If you can see it, you can copy it.
>
> About the only thing this potentially doesn't apply to is computer
> software. (Or anything similarly interactive, I guess.) Even then, if
> you can somehow pluck the decrypted data out of the computer's memory...
The logic being used seems to be:

1. You may use the key we provide to unlock your lock, as long as you 
get the key from the people that made the lock, not someone else.

2. You can pick your own lock, in some limited cases, sort of, just 
don't let us find out about it, or we will *assume* you intended to show 
other people how to do it.

3. You can't "make" an actual universal lock pick, or, at least, you 
need to destroy it as soon as you have used it, and never *ever* tell 
anyone else how it worked.

4. If you are actually stupid enough to sell the lock pick, or teach 
other people how to use them, you are dead meat.

5. This isn't really a lock persay, so there is no such thing as a "lock 
smith", who can *ever* let you get into the lock, should, somehow, the 
company that made the lock go out of business, or due to some other 
circumstance, it happens to become impossible to *get* a key to open it 
ever again.

Try those rules on anything else you "own" other than digital media and 
see how far you get...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 24-1-2011 18:42, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/01/2011 5:30 PM, andrel wrote:
>> (Yes, I know a shop that works that way. Even to the extend that I can
>> tell people that want to give me a present (happens about once a year)
>> to go there and tell it is for me).
>
> LOL “I’d like to buy a record for that weird PovRay guy.” ;-)

You can just use my name, but indeed, he knows I'm wierd.

> You’re lucky to have such a nice shop, BTW.

Quite a lot of music that I like now, I would not have known without 
him. It makes me a bit sad that the generation after me won't have this 
luxury. He started when you could make a living out of it. Enough to pay 
of his mortgage. If he had started now he wouldn't have a chance. both 
the internet and the record companies that don't want to support small 
shops. Takes too much time and they can more easily sell via the 
internet shops. We have had a situation where he ordered a CD for me and 
they simply did not deliver. After a few months waiting I bought it via 
Amazon and had it within a week.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 6:11 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 24-1-2011 18:42, Stephen wrote:
>> On 24/01/2011 5:30 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> (Yes, I know a shop that works that way. Even to the extend that I can
>>> tell people that want to give me a present (happens about once a year)
>>> to go there and tell it is for me).
>>
>> LOL “I’d like to buy a record for that weird PovRay guy.” ;-)
>
> You can just use my name, but indeed, he knows I'm wierd.

Aren't we all? ;-)

>
>> You’re lucky to have such a nice shop, BTW.
>
> Quite a lot of music that I like now, I would not have known without
> him. It makes me a bit sad that the generation after me won't have this
> luxury. He started when you could make a living out of it. Enough to pay
> of his mortgage. If he had started now he wouldn't have a chance. both
> the internet and the record companies that don't want to support small
> shops. Takes too much time and they can more easily sell via the
> internet shops. We have had a situation where he ordered a CD for me and
> they simply did not deliver. After a few months waiting I bought it via
> Amazon and had it within a week.

It is good that you (and some others, I presume) are supporting him.
I sometimes despair for the world that the young are growing up in. 
Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of things in the modern world that 
are better than the one I grew up in. But personal contact and service 
are getting lost.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-1-2011 10:45, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:

>> Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security
>> theater.
>
> What's TSA?

Oh come on. Been living under a stone again?
This about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-jdDE6bFow
or the more funny counteraction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHd3i7ZA2uU

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Basically, the music and film industry depends on it being possible to
>> make copies but not cheap to make copies.
> 
> And now those assumptions have been brutally violated. 

Well, yes. That was my point.

> You say the 
> industry needs to "deal with that", but I'm really not sure where that 
> leaves us. The only obvious solution is to just not sell content for 
> money any more, since the model isn't workable. 

Well, you might show movies only in the movie theater, or at least count as 
gravy anything you sell outside the theater. You might make draconian DRM, 
or DRM so transparent that most people don't mind it (like with video game 
consoles or Steam). You might institute DRM that provides for fair use, like 
the ability for libraries to loan out Kindle documents or something but only 
to one person at a time.

> (This of course leads 
> directly to high quality content no longer being made, which would be 
> very sad.)

But that's my point. High quality content used to be made before it was easy 
to make copies at all. You can still go to plays that involve dozens of 
people working for you as you sit there watching. You can still go to live 
concerts with pyrotechnics. These things haven't died out.

>> Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security
>> theater.
> 
> What's TSA?

The "security" at US airports that pretends to be catching terrorists.

>>> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their
>>> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1
>>> being "it doesn't work".)
>>
>> The real reason it doesn't work is that you only have to break it once.
>> Once someone takes the copy protection off, they can distribute the
>> broken version. So the DRM has to keep out the *smartest* attackers, not
>> just the average attackers.
> 
> The other reason is that you *must* take the DRM off to use the thing. 
> No matter which way the image data is encrypted, you /must/ decrypt it 
> in order to see it. If you can see it, you can copy it.

Well, that's what makes it possible to break in the first place. But the 
average joe wouldn't know how to rip a blu-ray disk. The problem is that if 
it costs more time and effort to break the DRM than the protected thing is 
worth, it's not worth doing. Nobody is going to spend two days ripping a 
blu-ray disk when you can buy it for $15.  The problem is that someone 
*will* spend two days ripping it (a) just to prove they can and (b) in order 
to give it to thousands of other people.

Nowadays, the video is (in theory) decrypted only inside your monitor, so 
the idea that you have to decrypt it to see it is not as much of a stumbling 
block. People are figuring out ways around that problem, and the battle 
continues.

> About the only thing this potentially doesn't apply to is computer 
> software. (Or anything similarly interactive, I guess.) Even then, if 
> you can somehow pluck the decrypted data out of the computer's memory...

Computer software isn't a whole lot easier to break. Of course, stuff like 
game consoles encrypt the data on disk, but I don't think it's encrypted in 
memory.  (There used to be copy-breaker cards for Apple ][ computers, where 
you'd plug it in, run your game or whatever, and then push the attached 
pushbutton and it would stop the CPU and copy all of RAM into its own RAM, 
so you could then quit the game and write it out to disk, so sure.)

Of course, DRM is only as good as the hardware it's stored in.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message