Quote from: Elliot Wilen;281298The problem with this equation is that YouTube distribution doesn't give you the same audio/video quality as DVDs.

If Monty Python were putting up rips of their DVDs on bittorrent, you'd be closer to the mark.

I think the main reason they're using Youtube is because Youtube is far more popular.  Its the most sensible place to put it from a point of view of marketing, not because its of lower quality video, but because its where the most people are likely to see it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J Skach;281279I was being overly obtuse, and for this I apologize.

Don't go changing, to try and please me.  You never let me down before.  

QuoteYou see, those clips were already available - hence the line from the MP's to the effect that "you've been ripping us off for years."

I'm going to tag that as "a bit tongue-in-cheek", although they certainly have a legitimate complaint in the background.

QuoteBut now, they come along and make them available, and suddenly the sales skyrocket? You see, I could argue that the availability had absolutely nothing to do with the increase in sales as those things were already available...

I don't know where the increase in sales figures come from, likely the second link which I didn't follow.  However, I would say they simply have better publicity about it.  If some of the YouTube folks had been as obvious about their efforts, we likely would have heard about a sales boost some time ago.

QuoteI mean, I could go so far as to suggest that legally releasing it was the difference maker in increasing sales by whatever amount - thus showing that legally releasing it is still the way to go...

I have already accounted for this.  I am not sure that is entirely as strong an indicator as you are, but that is also allowed.  I will say it is probably easier for an average intarwebz user to find the Monty Python channel than to follow two or three dozen links to as many different websites to find it all.

QuoteI wouldn't - I think in this case it's about marketing and a thousand other things.

I don't doubt there is some marketing in there.  But we are still left with some evidence that free product leads to sales.  Bill freely admits it.  Therefore, the argument against piracy causing financial harm is weakened.  How seriously is up to the individual to determine on their own.

Again, I am not disputing the ethical and moral argument.  The possibly beneficial effect of free material on sales has no impact on that.

Quote from: James J Skach;281281Ya know, after reading the Baen thing, I being to wonder how long it will be a story that someone does this and how long it will be until that gets you absolutely no press whatsoever, thereby lessening the impact and the cross-subsidy.

Well, every book I looked at on Baen Free Library is out of print and the authors have no intention of reprinting them...So it is only sensible to use them as advertising.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281300Well, to disagree with you slightly, there is one important difference: resisting the proliferation of internet sharing and ending up with the "pirates" of the internet releasing your stuff will mean that your stuff will still inevitably end up out there for free, but if you release it yourself, you can do it as part of a promotional concept (like the Pythons or Baen Books has) that I would assume is much MORE likely to generate increases in sales.

RPGPundit

Granted, the marketing and publicity value of releasing your material yourself is a factor.  The difficulty in determining how much of a factor is that when you release it yourself, you know when it hits and can start tracking sales, whereas various third parties trickling your material to the web on an inconsistent basis is impossible to correlate.

I would agree that the publisher releasing the material is going to be a stronger factor.  It is impossible to say how much stronger, however.

Quote from: jswa;281294I have no problem with pirating.

The fact is, I would never see a lot of the stuff that I do without pirating. I don't have the money, time, or inclination. If there were no such thing as pirating, I just would not be exposed to the media, period. No loss of profit for anyone there.

If I like it enough, I'll buy it (as far as RPGs go, anyway). Which implies a net gain for whoever it is I'm buying from.

And I'll keep pirating RPGs to glance through until the day comes when I don't have to wade through unwashed sacks of nerdflesh at the FLGS.

Morality is obsoleted by technology.

If the likes of Simon Cowell and Randy fucking 'the dog' Jackson go bankrupt (yeah right) because everyone's pirated the latest album by American Puppet then boo fucking hoo.

This debate is old. Filesharing is here to stay; people don't want to pay stupid amounts of money for media. If the record/movie/tv industry (and their fat cat execs) can't afford their next coke delivery because of the evil college kids downloading then tough shit. They aren't necessary for human existence and, to many, seem entirely detrimental to the creative process.

Time for a new paradigm. The day that evil piece of shit Cowell goes bankrupt (or at least has the decency to suck a tailpipe) will be a day of cultural emancipation so far as I can tell. I will cheer from the tallest tree. Look at the Watchmen film; fucking lawyers barking over who gets to profit from it like hounds braying over fresh meat. Disgraceful.

I say download the damn thing when it comes out so no fucker profits. Yet these idiots can't even agree half the time on the need for a worldwide movie release for a film and then they wonder how it got pirated.

Never mind the continual bullshit conflating piracy with things like international child sex slavery or terrorism (or whatever your current media friendly bogeyman is).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;281293If you make a music recording and sell it, radio stations can broadcast it without asking you or paying a royalty.

They may not have to ask, but they do have to pay royalties. However, you do not have to pay to hear it.

Just to be clear.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;281312Morality is obsoleted by technology.

If the likes of Simon Cowell and Randy fucking 'the dog' Jackson go bankrupt (yeah right) because everyone's pirated the latest album by American Puppet then boo fucking hoo.

This debate is old. Filesharing is here to stay; people don't want to pay stupid amounts of money for media. If the record/movie/tv industry (and their fat cat execs) can't afford their next coke delivery because of the evil college kids downloading then tough shit. They aren't necessary for human existence and, to many, seem entirely detrimental to the creative process.

Time for a new paradigm. The day that evil piece of shit Cowell goes bankrupt (or at least has the decency to suck a tailpipe) will be a day of cultural emancipation so far as I can tell. I will cheer from the tallest tree. Look at the Watchmen film; fucking lawyers barking over who gets to profit from it like hounds braying over fresh meat. Disgraceful.

I say download the damn thing when it comes out so no fucker profits. Yet these idiots can't even agree half the time on the need for a worldwide movie release for a film and then they wonder how it got pirated.

Never mind the continual bullshit conflating piracy with things like international child sex slavery or terrorism (or whatever your current media friendly bogeyman is).

Soooo, Randy Jackson and Simon Cowell voted you off of American Idol and you have sworn eternal vengeance against IP rights because of it?

That's right, yes.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;281335That's right, yes.

This song's for you.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;281312Morality is obsoleted by technology.

If the likes of Simon Cowell and Randy fucking 'the dog' Jackson go bankrupt (yeah right) because everyone's pirated the latest album by American Puppet then boo fucking hoo.

Waaait... were you the "she bangs" guy? If so, that would explain so much!

RPGPundit

I suggest reading the Wired article that Pundit linked to.  Interesting stuff, but I am unsure if the mantra "everything should be free" in 2009 is that much different from the lovely mantra of "dotcoms don't need profit" way back in 1999.

Quote from: StormBringer;281263There is no functional difference between Baen Books or Monty Python providing their products for free and Shifty McPirate uploading stuff onto an ftp site overseas.

Obviously, there is a 23000% difference.  

The MP stuff has been sitting free on torrents for years, but suddenly they get a jump in sales when they create the YouTube channel.  That's a remarkable functional difference.

Quote from: James J Skach;281279I mean, I could go so far as to suggest that legally releasing it was the difference maker in increasing sales by whatever amount

This appears to be the case.

Quote from: jeff37923;281303Well, every book I looked at on Baen Free Library is out of print and the authors have no intention of reprinting them

Hmm...this changes the equation dramatically.  Are you sure about this?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;281312Filesharing is here to stay

I would not bet on this.   Maybe you are right, but technology moves quickly and billionaires are not going to sit idle when both technology and politics can be brought to bear as weapons.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281291This is a bit more than "samples".  Samples is what Amazon does where they let you hear 10 seconds of a 4 minute song. This is entire works being put out for free, and leading people to buy DVDs with the exact same works.

I guess you can keep saying it over and over, hoping it becomes true.

So have at it.

Quote from: James J Skach;281313They may not have to ask, but they do have to pay royalties. However, you do not have to pay to hear it.

Not in the US, at least at the time of this blog post reporting on record companies' attempt to lobby for broadcast royalties (2007).

Internet radio is a separate issue, as mentioned in the blog post.

EDIT: Ah, correction, according to the post, broadcasters must pay royalties for using the composition, but they don't owe the performer or record company anything, at least for now. The point remains that the whole thing is pretty arbitrary and political.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;281351Not in the US, at least at the time of this blog post reporting on record companies' attempt to lobby for broadcast royalties (2007).

Internet radio is a separate issue, as mentioned in the blog post.

EDIT: Ah, correction, according to the post, broadcasters must pay royalties for using the composition, but they don't owe the performer or record company anything, at least for now. The point remains that the whole thing is pretty arbitrary and political.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties7.htm

Explains it pretty well.

Interesting Article by Paul Krugman on this topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

QuoteHow will this affect the publishing business? Right now, publishers make as much from a Kindle download as they do from the sale of a physical book. But the experience of the music industry suggests that this won't last: once digital downloads of books become standard, it will be hard for publishers to keep charging traditional prices.

Indeed, if e-books become the norm, the publishing industry as we know it may wither away. Books may end up serving mainly as promotional material for authors' other activities, such as live readings with paid admission. Well, if it was good enough for Charles Dickens, I guess it's good enough for me.