Wish I could mod up in the same thread, that language clarification is very helpful. I will remember it in the future, as I think it's an important distinction to make.

This.

I am not particularly fond of Apple as a company. Their strong arm tactics drive me crazy, and the slavish fan base constantly going on about the innovation they supposedly do (with their devices). But...

The true innovation that Apple has done though had nothing to do with their devices, but the platforms they created when they figured out how to handle the iTunes store, the App store, and those annoying walled gardens we all love to love and love to hate. For all the bad, it really has changed how people think about software and media distribution, and opened up opportunities to a lot of people, when the old distribution channels were only open to the chosen few.

Their devices are not innovative, they are just the most polished and accessible devices pretty much available. No wonder they are so love/hate on Slashdot, but the rest of the world loves em. Combined with one of the most effective distribution channels ever made, it's a pretty remarkable combo for consumers.

I would like to propose a tax - 10% of any politician's annual income everytime they attempt to speak with their ass. As Rep. Fourkiller is apparently doing.

Because content isn't the same thing as a commodity used for transportation. This is the continual apple's to koala bear's comparison, and it still ceases to be remotely relevant.

If the games are good, and people want to play them, I don't see the problem in expecting people to pay for them. Of course, I've been a member of teams who've seen their $10 million game sell 300k units and then have 29 million "registered" users playing online at various points. So maybe I'm just bitter.

Well, everything you said is pretty compatible with what I was trying to get across. I think I just needed to caveat it a bit more. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the current cable monopolies, including crap services like Hulu. It's taking the new, non-scummy models, like Netflix, DVD purchases, episode purchase and rentals, and making those the predominant distribution model.

However, if you're trying to say that, if you have the choice to buy a DVD of a show you love, and instead chose to download it off the TPB and try and dress it up as anything other than out and out theft.. well, there we part ways. I don't think that's what you're saying, I'm just trying to draw a very clear line in the sand about piracy as a legitimate means to an end (Non-availability or excessively unreasonable availability - draconian DRM, or monopolistic distribution channels), and piracy because it's free and damnit, I deserve to own every show ever made for free.

But that's my point. What you're suggesting there would work, if everyone signed up for it and agreed to it. Possibly the only way to really change it - because yes, the current model is broken all to hell - is a couple steps:
- Buy DVDs to the shows you actually like. Don't download them from Pirate Bay
- Access them via Netflix - It's a small amount comparatively, but Netflix makes sure the owners get some profit based on how much they're watched
- Convince Netflix, and other streaming sites like it, that they should start making their own shows, that are not beholden to the existing networks. Screw the Nielsen outdated ratings, allow limited free viewing, but utilize smart use of subscription models and "pay per episode" ownership for people who like the show enough to watch it.
- But as part of that, the content consuming public as a whole needs to stop robbing the content creators blind through sites like the Pirate Bay. Today, Pirate Bay has a valid function. In many cases, it's actually almost impossible to get a hold of TV episodes in a reasonable time frame or even get some more obscure shows. But to really make a transition to a healthy, affordable digital marketplace, people need to stop stealing and pretending it's not. There is, however, a serious cart before the horse conundrum that consumers have every right to be very skeptical of.

That is, of course, perfectly valid, but refuse it for long enough, and given the entitled "media should be free" attitude of the last 20 years.. Pretty soon, you should assume there will be no more high quality productions. No commercials, and most people completely unwilling to pay for anything because they're somehow entitled to it, and.. You'll have a lot of YouTube reality TV and some random indie projects of mixed quality from people who do it just for the love of it. But all other programming will go away.

I hate advertising as much as the next person, but unless a pay to own model comes out that meets the needs of helping a show make money to pay for the next show, and the sometimes reasonable, sometimes insane, demands for "complete and total control over my media! I own it!!!".. We're killing our own entertainment avenues.

This is really just a ploy to develop cheaper virtual machines. "No copy of Windows needed! Your Mac just THINKS it's Windows"

http://weeklypaper.blogspot.com/2008/01/touring-johnstown-pennsylvania.html

It's fairly blatant. Not much sympathy for a priest who feels the need to take some other groups branding to sell god. I don't know about suing, if actual money is involved, but asking him to politely "Get his own brand" is entirely appropriate, rather than stealing one that Best Buy has spent a lot of time and money building. This doesn't even touch the issue that as a company, Best Buy would probably prefer not to be associated with the Christian church, and alienate the 3.5 billion non-christian potential customers on the planet.

So, using that graph.. E&D turned a profit 7 out of the 13 quarters listed. Maybe not stellar, but also not exactly the doom and gloom of most game industry companies. Could it be better? Sure. And... E&D is only subsidized in the sense they pull from the same money pool as all divisions in the company. Their profitability, or lack, is purely driven by their divisional P&Ls.