Random musings of Jeromey Balderrama
I understand that people are trying to validate soccer as an up-and-coming sport in the US, but the New Mexico Lobos aren’t helping soccer’s case with this (hopefully this video isn’t taken down).
Maybe Elizabeth Lambert is trying to challenge Rodney Harrison as the “dirtiest player” (oh wait, Rodney’s retired, so now it’s Hines Ward).
Geez.
Watch this, and feel your blood boil. Watch as 60 Minutes, a supposed beacon of broadcast journalistic integrity, is spoon-fed propaganda from the MPAA, and eats it right up.
Let me make one thing clear: I don’t support movie piracy. At the same time, I can’t sit here and let the MPAA spread misinformation and scare tactics, painting everyone with a broad brush of evil.
I love how Leslie Stahl eats up all of the information – my favorite part is the look of disgust at 2:50 when she repeats “In the diaper bag” – without offering any kind of challenge or exploration in the truth of their claims. Instead, she just lets them go on and equate people who film movies in theaters to drug cartels, human traffickers and child prostitution.
I understand that there is a valid point in damage being done the counterfeit DVD circles, but 60 MInutes let the MPAA completely blur the line between them and the kids who download bit-torrented movies on the Internet. Furthermore, Stahl allows the MPAA to tarnish the US citizens with their broad brush, yet conveniently forgetting about the rampant piracy that is going on in Asia – specifically China – where they’re making money hand-over-fist from piracy. It makes sense that DVD counterfeits may cost them money, but where’s the direct linkage with bit-torrent? Still, the MPAA goes for their low-hanging fruit – the “gee-whiz computer technology”.
In the piece the MPAA allege that their industry is robbed of $6 billion annually by piracy – yet they base this on the false pretense that everyone that downloaded their movie had the original intention of seeing it in the theater, or purchasing the $25 DVD. That’s simply not true. According to the MPAA, the people downloading these movies must be doing it because they’re evil jerks who want to rob the “little people” of the movie industry blind. There can’t possibly be another side to this: the fact that people want to consume this media in different ways – that some people actually don’t want to go sit in a crowded theater with the talking and crying babies and $5 soda. In the piece they showed people being wanded and searched, as well as forced to turn in their cell phones, just so they can see a movie. Wow, when you treat your customers like criminals and give them cavity searches, who wouldn’t want to go to a theater? No way in hell am I going to give you my money, just so I can be treated like that.
It’s one thing if you’re providing a good alternative – like a same day digital release that I can watch in the comfort of my home theater with a cold beer in my hand – but the fact is that you’re blatantly ignoring the changing market conditions and instead just whine about the Internet. Where was Mark Cuban to talk about his same-day release and digital distribution ideas? 60 Minutes had no interest in providing any other views in this complex issue. Apparently movie downloading equates to drowning puppies: no one can have a differing view.
I love how they parade out Steven Soderbergh to say that he wishes the Internet was never invented. I’m sure you do Steven, because now people can warn other movie-goers about some of the crap that people call “movies” and expect people to shell out $8-12 to go see. Surely the fact studios green-light these sure-fire bombs (soon-to-be Avatar, anyone?) can’t be the reason no one sees these movies. no it’s all based on piracy.
Soderbergh says they’re losing money at an alarming rates, yet I think someone forgot to tell him that 2007 was a record-breaking year when it came to movie theater revenue. If I’m not mistaken, 2008 was an even better year for them. Apparently he still thinks they’re not being paid. Someone should tell him that the revenue you bring in, over the cost/budget for the picture (which I believe includes the salaries for “the little guys”) = profit for the studios.
Again, I’m not advocating piracy or making excuses for those who download movies – however is it too much to ask 60 Minutes to at least do some research before they parrot the MPAA’s talking points?
I ran across this great post a few days ago that I found to be very relevant as my band evaluates where devote on-line energy. This brings up the elephant in the room that all bands need to discuss sooner or later.
It’s no secret that MySpace is on it’s way out. The prominent rise of Facebook, coupled with our pain threshold for spam, flashing graphics and blaring noise has worn out MySpace’s welcome. Long ago have I abandoned any meaningful time spent at the spent for my personal profile. For my band’s profile, I still log into MySpace a few times per week, but the ROI has continued to decrease for our band and MySpace.
The biggest thing you can take away from the article is Reason #3:
Other bands are not your primary source of attendance
According to the statistics I’ve heard, there are roughly 8 million bands on MySpace, and you have 15,000 of them as friends! Unfortunately, those people are probably not buying your albums or attending your shows. While they may be good to do a show swap with, or bro down with for a tour some day-they’re not helping you pay the bills and put butts in your seats.
The 10% of users that are real people more than likely COMPLETELY ignore the “bulletins” that you can blast out to everyone. When was the last time you went to a show based on a bulletin you saw on MySpace? [Assault Blog]
I can’t tell you the last time I’ve interacted with an actual fan on MySpace. Almost every interaction I have is with other bands, and the ones that aren’t bands are booking agents/venues – which is really only the valid communication that goes on for us on MySpace. The collaboration is on MySpace is also a downside, because typically when these venues list you on their promotion, they link our MySpace, which isn’t our best web presence out there.
The article lists some great resources & alternatives to using MySpace. We use some of them including Twitter and Last.Fm. There was one omission which I think is starting to become unavoidable: Facebook. While I agree that it’s always best to own your own content and presentation, along with the concession that Facebook is a little harder for brand outreach – but you need to be where people are at – which right now is Facebook.
Until then, I think we’re going to start to wean ourselves off of MySpace. I don’t think we’ll ever stop posting music, pictures and show schedules there, but only because it doesn’t hurt to keep things updated for booking agents. However, I think it’s time for bands to focus their energies elsewhere.
This came across my radar today and proved to be something I found interesting. It appears that there is a movement in Idaho to make rolling stops legal for cyclists. This well-put-together video making a compelling case for this to be allowed.
I am probably what I would consider is an aspiring cyclist. I could definitely ride my bike a lot more, but during the summer I made an effort to commute to work at least 1-2 times per week on my bike.
I think they make a really compelling argument and I can’t disagree with it. However, it does make a very dangerous assumption: that all cyclists are alert, law-abiding commuters. My experience has been significantly opposite. While many cyclists do obey the laws, on every drive/ride I encounter at least 2 cyclists that are riding the wrong way on the road, using sidewalks when there are perfectly good bike lanes, and riding across major intersections during red lights. I think the spirit of the law is sound, and it sounds like they’ve tried to address is by proposing a larger fine for cyclists who don’t yield. At the same time, I think this is a pretty grey area. Stop signs draw a concrete line in the sand as to how you maintain safety, and once you remove that it can become really subjective.
Secondly, can’t this same argument be made for cars? Bikes are definitely efficient in terms of expunging energy, but when a car comes to a complete stop and starts moving again, more energy is expunged than if it was able to roll through. I realize that a car is much more dangerous than a bike, but I wonder if the same principles would apply for the times I come up against a 2-way stop on a deserted intersection at 11pm.
The news came out today that the Droid is set for a release on November 6. I have to admit that I am twitterpated about this phone. While I won’t be lining up to get it right away, I’m happy that my device renewal discount date is on November 19, which should be enough time to see if the phone is as good as advertised.
Verizon released their first hands-on demo of the phone, which has resulted in drool being cleaned off my keyboard.
From what I can tell, the fact that they’re touting the Google Maps features tells me that Verizon isn’t crippling the phone’s GPS, which is a major annoyance I Have with my XV6800.
Anyone else excited about the Droid?