"He said the organization is lobbying for a bigger cut of the profits from digital distribution which he claims simply aren't there".
Give us a break! The profits are huge because they are selling somethjing that does not exist physically (no need to manufacture anything!), can be duplicated to the infinite at no cost and can be distributed and sold at virtually no cost using the P2P networks.
Do they want to boost sales thusands of times wordwide and stop piracy overnight? It is plain easy: just sell any original downloadable CD, DVD or Blu-ray for $1. BUT THESE GREEDY DONOSAURS WILL NEVER GET IT. Poor things, moving to extinction!
Right, the former head of Disney is going to tell us all about being greedy.
There is an overly-deep layer of middle-men between creators and buyers.
Digital downloading eliminates manufacturing and distribution from the equation as well as the fan-dance of shuffling associated costs and people like Eisner struggle now to justify much of their existence.
Apple's simple pricing structure just makes their pain more acute.
Eagerly waiting for 10411.... Kudos to AAPL for being able to provide us bug free systems and so innovative toys !!!
Regarding the racist/religion wars you are ALL so 20 century are you not ?
Stop these idiotics rants wether you feel pro or against the incrimined post.
Face the reality of today / Apple is the new religion and Steve is our Lord - and wether you want it or not we are all members of the new sect, and we all wishes to pay whatever they will ask us to follow the cult.
No figures on the TV shows and movies yet, but on iTunes it's fairly well established that of the .99, the labels get .70 or so. The rest goes to the credit cards, with a small percentage to Apple as a profit. Of course, Apple gets to sell iPods, which is the point of the operation for Apple.
Of course, you have to measure that against the expense for the labels. Now, for a CD, they spend money for manufacture, maybe 60 cents. Then the packaging, maybe a dollar. Then money for transportation to the thousands of locations around the country. Then the promotion and so on. Then, compared to that, they release the file to Apple. Effective costs: a couple of pennies. Then, per song, they get 70 cents. (In the music business, at least some of that goes to the artist, but in the video business, the entire studio's share goes straight to the studio. For the writers, and so on? Nothing.)
Of course, NBC Universal wants to break with Apple. So what do they do? Open up a deal with Amazon. Apple takes too much, they say. So how do they compete? They go DRM-free, 256 kbps mp3, and they sell most tracks for ten cents LESS. Brilliant! Why soon, they will be offering more high-quality content for the iPod even cheaper! Oh, Apple is bleeding!!! Don't throw Apple in that briar patch!
What idiots. What they don't seem to realize is, there will be no DRM in a year, and the going rate per track will be about 25 cents. Apple HAS been holding the price UP, not down.
When the music business finally gets it through their thick skulls that they're competing not against Apple, but against all the free sources of music. The way to do that is to supply high quality at low prices. Then sales will rise by unit, and piracy will be close to disappearing.
The first music act that quits their label and sells their music that way on the net will get very rich. You've seen political campaigns raise huge amounts from the net, right? Why should it be any different in music?
part of the freedom of speech is the freedom to not speak. I would appreciate it if both of these posters would exercise that freedom.
As for Eisner's comments -- if the online system isn't profitable, then simply offer a profit-sharing deal to writers -- for ever $ made, X amount is paid.... I wonder why the studios aren't offering that....
couldn't be due to a lack of willingness to share profit, could it -- there is no profit!
first time post and, sad as I am that it was out of outrage, I'm glad to be here.
I gather that you are not fully knowledgeable of Canada's Constitution.
For your information, their is a significant constitutional difference in rights between Canada and US re freedom of speech.
In the U.S., a person cannot legally yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. But are free to say just about anything else without danger of criminal prosecution.
Whereas in Canada, Freedom of Expression is provided as long as you respect the rights of others which is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights.
Your comments and support of such diatribe is equally inflammatory and irresponsible.
Shame on you, and your right to call yourself a Canadian.
I gather that you are not fully knowledgeable of Canada's Constitution.
For your information, their is a significant constitutional difference in rights between Canada and US re freedom of speech.
In the U.S., a person cannot legally yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. But are free to say just about anything else without danger of criminal prosecution.
Also, In the US doesn't require private establishments to allow free speech. If a person doesn like the rules at one site, they can go to another site with different rules, or even start their own.
Shame on you, and your right to call yourself a Canadian.
The lack of free speech in Canada can be both a good and bad thing (I am Canadian and lived there for 25 years) - they get to shut down the Neo Nazi people, but they also do stupid stuff with it (like the government banning the movie "Heavy Metal" until the 90s or so).
All in all, I think it is better to put up with the crap and have a government powerless to enforce moral codes, because enforcement of moral codes is the root of all government evil.
[ob on topic] Eisner is an ass, that raped Disney shareholders for $1billion or so while he ran the company - the shareholders would have been better off in an index fund. Jobs is a way better CEO, as you can see by stock price performance since he came back.
These posts, however, are off-topic and have no place in civilized discussion. Frankly, I'm surprised the mods haven't moved faster to remedy the situation.
The main reason that deleting this stuff takes longer is that all of you people QUOTE the offending text. Six people quoted the remark just to say that it should be deleted, so I have to edit that out of all six of your posts. If you want me to quickly take out the trash, please leave it all in one place.
Oh, but thanks for flagging this objectionable content. We can't read every post in the whole site, so we are grateful for those who hit the red button.
Any contracts requires at least 2 parties to agree. If the studios signed a deal that makes Apple rich while they get little or nothing, then shame on them.....somehow I don't think that was the case. Clearly the studios felt that whatever percentage they got of that heretofore nonexistent revenue was better then 100% of nothing.
They will all have the choice to renew or try to make it on there own, a la NBC. Something tells me, that while there will be lots of renegotiation, very few will try to go an alternative route.
Kudos to elroth and Swift for their eloquently insightful comments.
Screenwriters who are clever enough to write entertaining stories that are successful with intelligent audiences appear to also be clever enough to realize that the old business model for entertainment production and distribution is changing in ways that can better reward the production side of the business.
For decades (thanks, in large part, to operations like Disney’s Buena Vista) it was the distribution part of the movie business that made the most money. The costs of running theaters and television networks, or the costs of manufacturing and distributing video tapes or DVDs, helped to make the high cost of entertainment acceptable to the public. There is still a cost to digital distribution, and it’s not insignificant. (Those of you in the audience who are sysadmins have probably stopped to ponder just how much IT infrastructure it takes to distribute the volume of media that the iTunes Store has sold. I assume it’s massive.) Even so, digital distribution is far more efficient and carries a lower overhead, especially for lower-quality renderings. So the well-informed public is not as willing to pay as high a price for distribution as they used to be. (I believe this would be true even if there weren't the problem of unauthorized copying.)
What the public IS willing to pay for, though, (as Walt Disney himself preached [1]) is a good story. “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Harry Potter and the Whatever” -- all are fascinating stories that have been hugely successful as movies. The money to pay for them has, in the past, come more from the distribution side of the business than from the direct sale of the rights for the production itself. As distribution becomes simpler and less costly, people will pay less for it, and productions will have to gain revenue from a reformed accounting system that more directly rewards the production process. It is well known that Hollywood has developed a Byzantine system of accounting that shifts expenses all over the place in a way that minimizes net income and thereby minimizes payments to share-interest participants (which often includes scriptwriters) and investors. Digital distribution is forcing that to change; Eisner and those who think like him apparently are wishing on a star that it wouldn’t.
He insists they are making nothing on online content. If that were the case he'd have no objection to giving a percent to the writers, since a percent of nothing is nothing.
The fact that they're unwilling to give up a cut shows that it is either making money, or they think it will sooner or later.
He insists they are making nothing on online content. If that were the case he'd have no objection to giving a percent to the writers, since a percent of nothing is nothing.
The fact that they're unwilling to give up a cut shows that it is either making money, or they think it will sooner or later.
I think the fact that they claim no money is being made online *now* is specious as well. Unlike his current little experiment, for the studios, it's an additional market that they've gotten into that should take them almost no money to exploit. Even if iTunes takes away from their broadcast revenue because it loses some of the audience that would rather pay than get ads, they should be making more than twice as much per download than they are getting if that person watched the show over the air. And it wouldn't involve spending so much on marketing either.
Comments
And Admins... please, keep this forum free from youtube style posts.
Give us a break! The profits are huge because they are selling somethjing that does not exist physically (no need to manufacture anything!), can be duplicated to the infinite at no cost and can be distributed and sold at virtually no cost using the P2P networks.
Do they want to boost sales thusands of times wordwide and stop piracy overnight? It is plain easy: just sell any original downloadable CD, DVD or Blu-ray for $1. BUT THESE GREEDY DONOSAURS WILL NEVER GET IT. Poor things, moving to extinction!
what's up with the greedy jews? first Zucker then Eisenberg. Not enough money to send to Israel?
Please delete this offensive post and bar this user from posting!
This has no place on a forum site for Apple and Mac enthusiasts.
So if I call him a big giant COCK, an idiot, a stupid STUPID waste of time and effort.
does that make me rather witty?
YUP
because he is a complete tool.
There is an overly-deep layer of middle-men between creators and buyers.
Digital downloading eliminates manufacturing and distribution from the equation as well as the fan-dance of shuffling associated costs and people like Eisner struggle now to justify much of their existence.
Apple's simple pricing structure just makes their pain more acute.
Screw them, I say.
mafiaa.org/
Regarding the racist/religion wars you are ALL so 20 century are you not ?
Stop these idiotics rants wether you feel pro or against the incrimined post.
Face the reality of today / Apple is the new religion and Steve is our Lord - and wether you want it or not we are all members of the new sect, and we all wishes to pay whatever they will ask us to follow the cult.
Of course, you have to measure that against the expense for the labels. Now, for a CD, they spend money for manufacture, maybe 60 cents. Then the packaging, maybe a dollar. Then money for transportation to the thousands of locations around the country. Then the promotion and so on. Then, compared to that, they release the file to Apple. Effective costs: a couple of pennies. Then, per song, they get 70 cents. (In the music business, at least some of that goes to the artist, but in the video business, the entire studio's share goes straight to the studio. For the writers, and so on? Nothing.)
Of course, NBC Universal wants to break with Apple. So what do they do? Open up a deal with Amazon. Apple takes too much, they say. So how do they compete? They go DRM-free, 256 kbps mp3, and they sell most tracks for ten cents LESS. Brilliant! Why soon, they will be offering more high-quality content for the iPod even cheaper! Oh, Apple is bleeding!!! Don't throw Apple in that briar patch!
What idiots. What they don't seem to realize is, there will be no DRM in a year, and the going rate per track will be about 25 cents. Apple HAS been holding the price UP, not down.
When the music business finally gets it through their thick skulls that they're competing not against Apple, but against all the free sources of music. The way to do that is to supply high quality at low prices. Then sales will rise by unit, and piracy will be close to disappearing.
The first music act that quits their label and sells their music that way on the net will get very rich. You've seen political campaigns raise huge amounts from the net, right? Why should it be any different in music?
part of the freedom of speech is the freedom to not speak. I would appreciate it if both of these posters would exercise that freedom.
As for Eisner's comments -- if the online system isn't profitable, then simply offer a profit-sharing deal to writers -- for ever $ made, X amount is paid.... I wonder why the studios aren't offering that....
couldn't be due to a lack of willingness to share profit, could it -- there is no profit!
first time post and, sad as I am that it was out of outrage, I'm glad to be here.
For your information, their is a significant constitutional difference in rights between Canada and US re freedom of speech.
In the U.S., a person cannot legally yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. But are free to say just about anything else without danger of criminal prosecution.
Whereas in Canada, Freedom of Expression is provided as long as you respect the rights of others which is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights.
Your comments and support of such diatribe is equally inflammatory and irresponsible.
Shame on you, and your right to call yourself a Canadian.
I gather that you are not fully knowledgeable of Canada's Constitution.
For your information, their is a significant constitutional difference in rights between Canada and US re freedom of speech.
In the U.S., a person cannot legally yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. But are free to say just about anything else without danger of criminal prosecution.
Also, In the US doesn't require private establishments to allow free speech. If a person doesn like the rules at one site, they can go to another site with different rules, or even start their own.
Shame on you, and your right to call yourself a Canadian.
The lack of free speech in Canada can be both a good and bad thing (I am Canadian and lived there for 25 years) - they get to shut down the Neo Nazi people, but they also do stupid stuff with it (like the government banning the movie "Heavy Metal" until the 90s or so).
All in all, I think it is better to put up with the crap and have a government powerless to enforce moral codes, because enforcement of moral codes is the root of all government evil.
[ob on topic] Eisner is an ass, that raped Disney shareholders for $1billion or so while he ran the company - the shareholders would have been better off in an index fund. Jobs is a way better CEO, as you can see by stock price performance since he came back.
These posts, however, are off-topic and have no place in civilized discussion. Frankly, I'm surprised the mods haven't moved faster to remedy the situation.
The main reason that deleting this stuff takes longer is that all of you people QUOTE the offending text. Six people quoted the remark just to say that it should be deleted, so I have to edit that out of all six of your posts. If you want me to quickly take out the trash, please leave it all in one place.
Oh, but thanks for flagging this objectionable content. We can't read every post in the whole site, so we are grateful for those who hit the red button.
They will all have the choice to renew or try to make it on there own, a la NBC. Something tells me, that while there will be lots of renegotiation, very few will try to go an alternative route.
Screenwriters who are clever enough to write entertaining stories that are successful with intelligent audiences appear to also be clever enough to realize that the old business model for entertainment production and distribution is changing in ways that can better reward the production side of the business.
For decades (thanks, in large part, to operations like Disney’s Buena Vista) it was the distribution part of the movie business that made the most money. The costs of running theaters and television networks, or the costs of manufacturing and distributing video tapes or DVDs, helped to make the high cost of entertainment acceptable to the public. There is still a cost to digital distribution, and it’s not insignificant. (Those of you in the audience who are sysadmins have probably stopped to ponder just how much IT infrastructure it takes to distribute the volume of media that the iTunes Store has sold. I assume it’s massive.) Even so, digital distribution is far more efficient and carries a lower overhead, especially for lower-quality renderings. So the well-informed public is not as willing to pay as high a price for distribution as they used to be. (I believe this would be true even if there weren't the problem of unauthorized copying.)
What the public IS willing to pay for, though, (as Walt Disney himself preached [1]) is a good story. “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Harry Potter and the Whatever” -- all are fascinating stories that have been hugely successful as movies. The money to pay for them has, in the past, come more from the distribution side of the business than from the direct sale of the rights for the production itself. As distribution becomes simpler and less costly, people will pay less for it, and productions will have to gain revenue from a reformed accounting system that more directly rewards the production process. It is well known that Hollywood has developed a Byzantine system of accounting that shifts expenses all over the place in a way that minimizes net income and thereby minimizes payments to share-interest participants (which often includes scriptwriters) and investors. Digital distribution is forcing that to change; Eisner and those who think like him apparently are wishing on a star that it wouldn’t.
[1] - WALT DISNEY: AN AMERICAN ORIGINAL by Bob Thomas
These execs are brainwashing us to think that because there's no physical media, there's less entertainment.
That and they want to charge more for it.
He insists they are making nothing on online content. If that were the case he'd have no objection to giving a percent to the writers, since a percent of nothing is nothing.
The fact that they're unwilling to give up a cut shows that it is either making money, or they think it will sooner or later.
There is valid criticism he could level against apple and/or screen writers. However, his commentary simply makes no sense.
Eisner's whole argument is comical.
He insists they are making nothing on online content. If that were the case he'd have no objection to giving a percent to the writers, since a percent of nothing is nothing.
The fact that they're unwilling to give up a cut shows that it is either making money, or they think it will sooner or later.
I think the fact that they claim no money is being made online *now* is specious as well. Unlike his current little experiment, for the studios, it's an additional market that they've gotten into that should take them almost no money to exploit. Even if iTunes takes away from their broadcast revenue because it loses some of the audience that would rather pay than get ads, they should be making more than twice as much per download than they are getting if that person watched the show over the air. And it wouldn't involve spending so much on marketing either.