42 replies to this topic

[icuurd12b42]

As in every successful industry, you'll find examples of money laundering at one time or another. But there's no evidence money laundering drove the creation of the music and movie industries. Where did you read this?

I got it from the stable boy who got it from the horse's mouth. There are documentaries on the subject now. It's not a big secret, just a dark past.

They are having the same problem in Ballywood recently.

The horse's mouth? No, the stable boy was looking at the other end. :tongue:

And you mean, "Bollywood", right? Yes, India's money laundering is in the news. But again, this is an example of a successful and profitable industry being exploited by crime after the fact.

There's no evidence of your claim that money launderers created the industry in the first place, for the purpose of money laundering. They did not. Especially not in Hollywood, where the industry started.

Where's that darn documentary
After the fact if you mean 2 minutes after it's birth then ok. Most (ok, say many) film inverters in those days had great connections to the mob (reflected in The Godfather trilogy). Rather simply, actors and crew... production were payed with the investor's dirty money, film is produced, goes into theater, legitimate profit are used to pay back investors. Money cleaned. Distribution Firms lives on, memory fades. It's like denying the gambling industry's roots.

It's OK if you don't want to include this in your realms.


As for getting back on track.

Well, I guess we are left with only the limited options for implementation in a closed system. like a virtual world or a netflix type setup.

Back to dreamland I go

[chance]

There's no evidence of your claim that money launderers created the industry in the first place, for the purpose of money laundering. They did not. Especially not in Hollywood, where the industry started.

Where's that darn documentary
After the fact if you mean 2 minutes after it's birth then ok. Most (ok, say many) film inverters in those days had great connections to the mob (reflected in The Godfather trilogy).

You need to provide some evidence, other than referring to the Godfather movies.

The movie industry was already established in the years prior to WWI in the early 1900's -- both in the US and Europe. Following WWI, it became one of the 20th century's most remarkable growth industries.

Like every industry, it undoubtedly had some criminal elements. But those criminal elements didn't create the industry for the purpose of money laundering. I can't find any reference to criminal influence, other than a few actors rumored to have mafia connections in the late 40's and 50's.

You really need to provide some evidence for your claim, other than "generic stories" from the Godfather trilogy.

[icuurd12b42]

Yeah, the only documentary left is a Spanish dub on youtube and the memory of the stable boy. so lets stop that tangent before they knock at my door (LOL).

[chance]

Yeah, the only documentary left is a Spanish dub on youtube and the memory of the stable boy. so lets stop that tangent before they knock at my door (LOL).

Agreed. It's interesting... but not really relevant.

Anyway... I was thinking more about the flat-fee idea. It occurs to me that it's similar to how some news services operate. Subscribers pay a membership fee (or a small monthly fee). That allows them to access all the content that particular service offers.

I wonder how well this scheme is working for them? One challenge they have is that lots of competing news services are free -- paid for by advertising. And it's all the same news.

As far as game sites, I haven't see this flat-fee model applied. Mostly, I see free games on ad-supported sites. But there must be some sites that operate this way. I think it could work if that site had the right selection of games that weren't available elsewhere.

.

Edited by chance, 17 January 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[icuurd12b42]

I don't know, is it for accessing news content created and paid for and originally distributed by conventional means. So it would be a supplement. In which case, working or not, there is no loss involved.

This sort of reminds me of the idea of who owns the news. By that I mean the event, not the reporting. In my opinion access to news should be free, but someone has to report it and get paid, where it is free when gotten from the local TV broadcast. But what happens after that, the broadcast company locks the report in it's vault (or in the past re-used the tapes) or posts it for a while on their sites.

It's a good idea to have it available out there and a flat-fee should be adequate to at least cover the cost of storage and streaming if you don't plan on profiting on it any longer. However we fall in the same deadlock; why would people pay if they can get it for free. How to prevent piracy without having a SOPA nightmare. But we already covered that; I mean I dont want to re-launch our discussion again into a circular augment.

For news, a lot of people on YouTube are posting reports without consent from fox or cnn or cbc or bbc. In a way it's bad but at least from those illegal actions the reports are saved for prosperity to reference and actually do more for the survival of the content than the broadcaster does. However the content was never profitable beyond it's original broadcast so I don't think the broadcaster really strive to find the news cloners that much. Hmmm, beyond the original broadcast... sort of like movies were not profitable beyond there initial theater release until the means to make copies and play them in homes came about.

[Bytewin]

As in every successful industry, you'll find examples of money laundering at one time or another. But there's no evidence money laundering drove the creation of the music and movie industries. Where did you read this?

I got it from the stable boy who got it from the horse's mouth. There are documentaries on the subject now. It's not a big secret, just a dark past.

They are having the same problem in Ballywood recently.

The horse's mouth? No, the stable boy was looking at the other end.

And you mean, "Bollywood", right? Yes, India's money laundering is in the news. But again, this is an example of a successful and profitable industry being exploited by crime after the fact.

There's no evidence of your claim that money launderers created the industry in the first place, for the purpose of money laundering. They did not. Especially not in Hollywood, where the industry started.

I agree it's painful to see companies/creators fail. But trying to "protect" companies from failure, may actually subsidize failure. Successful business involves risk-taking, learning painful lessons, and weeding out those who can't succeed. Sounds mean... But in the long run, it strengthens the industry.

Vague hopes yield vague ideas. so I agree with you here. Though it would be nice if there was some protection to the industry as a selling point of the system.

I believe the only way your flat-fee idea could work is on a much smaller scale. For example, game developers are hired by a "corporation" that also delivers consumer content. Those developers sign a contract for some period of time -- i.e., they are employees who grant the corporation exclusive rights to their products. They create games, based on the market research of the corporation, which in turn offers its limited assortment of games to its "subscribers" for a flat-fee.

In turn, the developers are guaranteed a fixed profit (and maybe a percentage). i.e., they settle for less money than they might make in the free market, but they're protected from risk of failure.

The "corporation" has its own limited set of games, and is just one part of a larger free market. Schemes like this couldn't replace the free market, making all content available for the same flat fee, for the reasons we've been discussing.

Like, oh say, Netflix and Blockbuster for videogames, don't they have gamefly?
Except that gamefly doesn't work for PC...

[icuurd12b42]

Like, oh say, Netflix and Blockbuster for videogames, don't they have gamefly?
Except that gamefly doesn't work for PC...

I think it is established that there are companies that offer a service similar to the concept with limited content (Netflix). Gamefly imposes limits. 11$ guarantees you can rent 2 games per month but you still need to pay the extra rental cost per extra game (looks like, I dont have this here), but there is no limit on the rental period. Hey, look there is a PC option new!. Game fly is still very compatible with the current rental method though it could be considered a form of piracy unless you have to return the cd when you rent another game.

[chance]

But what happens after that, the broadcast company locks the report in it's vault (or in the past re-used the tapes) or posts it for a while on their sites.

Interesting question. I guess my view is that since consumers can legally record newscasts for personal use, there's no obligation for broadcasters to provide a free archive. Many do, however, and consumers can access them. But that's up to each provider.

But I agree there's a market for archive access for a flat-fee -- mostly for historical or biographical research.

Personally, I think the reason many consumers are willing to pay subscriber fees for current news, is because of the dubious quality of some free broadcast news. There are some notable exceptions, such as BBC World News (UK) and National Public Radio (US). But these are over-shadowed by very biased broadcasters (I'm looking at you, Rupert Murdoch).

However the content was never profitable beyond it's original broadcast so I don't think the broadcaster really strive to find the news cloners that much. Hmmm, beyond the original broadcast... sort of like movies were not profitable beyond there initial theater release until the means to make copies and play them in homes came about.

True... but maybe not a good comparison. Old newscasts (except maybe for interesting historical events) don't have the same "replay value" as old movies.

[gamereality]

Just on the original topic, I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but even if we lived in a world where this were viable for the consumers, I highly doubt developers would jump on this platform.

The reason being would be that it is essentially a unified distribution. Rather than have the freedom to set your own prices (or at least for the publisher to set their price), income would be generated as part of a "share" of the total platform. This doesn't really match up with the whole idea of a "free" market; one that we've used for generations.

Although it is a very interesting way to look at things, and it appears tantalising at first glance for the consumer, there would simply be very little support for this notion of distribution from the side that controls it.

For a smaller platform, this would be, arguably, an effective idea, however. If you were a game company, fresh out of the proverbial womb, going this way would encourage a tighter fanbase, but the general aversion to subscription fees that appears to have permeated consumers as of late might keep you guessing.

So, yes, it's a nice sounding idea, but no, it's not practical for developers, and in the long run, consumers.

Edited by gamereality, 18 January 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[chance]

I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but even if we lived in a world where this were viable for the consumers, I highly doubt developers would jump on this platform.

The reason being would be that it is essentially a unified distribution. Rather than have the freedom to set your own prices (or at least for the publisher to set their price), income would be generated as part of a "share" of the total platform. This doesn't really match up with the whole idea of a "free" market; one that we've used for generations.

Not only was it covered... it was the central theme of this discussion. For example:

it doesn't leave room for exceptional games to reap exceptional profits. It allows consumers to access games -- both good and bad -- all at the same price.

This reduces the incentive for developers to make large investments, and take large risks, to make innovative games.

<later>

...address the bigger issue of how publishers can maintain their competitive edge, if consumers can access all content for the same price -- regardless of its cost to produce.

<and others...>

In any event, I think we all agreed (several days ago) that the flat-fee system isn't a practical replacement for the free market. But that it might be well suited to smaller applications.

[06jamhob]

/

Edited by 06jamhob, 22 January 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[icuurd12b42]

...

No need to yell man.

[chance]

This is a ridiculous, short sighted idea that is ill thought through.
<...>
ITS A FLAWED IDEA! IT IS IMPRACTICAL AND IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT, YOUR FIGURES ARE USED INCORRECTLY AS YOU HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT IT REALISTICLY, AND JUST SAID WHAT U WANT IT TO BE AND MANIPULATED YOUR FIGURES TO ACHEIVE THIS!

Holy crap... calm down. This was a discussion about possible ideas. Posts were pro / con / devil's advocate ... just tossing out ideas.

That's what makes an interesting discussion.

[Mr. RPG]

I don't like digital downloads period, at least for commercial games.


If the gaming industry were to go completely digital, I would stop buying games completely.

[icuurd12b42]

I don't like digital downloads period, at least for commercial games.


If the gaming industry were to go completely digital, I would stop buying games completely.

I don't know about that for me. the topic was spawned from that steam topic... Is it because of the digital copy having a DRM attached to it, or the lack of a pre-make cd/dvd. Me, right now, it's the shear size. I tried to get a crippled "try before you buy" version of StarCraft... ~6 GB. I hit that cancel button. Can't blow my monthly dl limit.

[Dangerous_Dave]

I don't like digital downloads period, at least for commercial games.


If the gaming industry were to go completely digital, I would stop buying games completely.

I'm the opposite. I hate discs. Discs can be lost, scratched, snapped, melted in the microwave, etc. Not only that, but I can't stand having a massive pile of discs.

Before Steam existed, I'd always crack any software I bought (and wanted to play more than once) because I hate having to find the disc. Now I don't buy discs. I love knowing that if I accidentally drop my laptop from 100 stories up by trying to balance my coffee on the wrong edge of it while I had it balanced on the railing of the balcony, I can just get a new computer, log in and download all my games again. The best thing about Steam, in comparison to other DRM, is that if I don't have an internet connection, for the most part my games can all still be played. The other best thing is that I can pick up copies of awesome games for no more than a few dollars each.

I have nearly 200 games bought on my Steam account. Before Steam existed, I'd dread the thought of where I'd store all those cases.

Me, right now, it's the shear size. I tried to get a crippled "try before you buy" version of StarCraft... ~6 GB. I hit that cancel button. Can't blow my monthly dl limit.

My ISP recently set up their own Steam server. Free Steam data for customers :D (for games they have on their server, which is most but not all). Now I struggle to use my limit!

[Bytewin]

I struggle to find an ISP that does give you a dl limit.
Seriously. Most services nowadays, at least in Florida, you just pay for your internet, they set your speed according to the price you pay, and voila, you can download whatever you want as long as you don't hack the system somehow and change your dl speed. The more files you download, the slower your internet goes, so they don't lose money because they don't have to give your computer any more speed...
I don't understand how people can live with dl limits nowadays.

[Dangerous_Dave]

I struggle to find an ISP that does give you a dl limit.
Seriously. Most services nowadays, at least in Florida, you just pay for your internet, they set your speed according to the price you pay, and voila, you can download whatever you want as long as you don't hack the system somehow and change your dl speed. The more files you download, the slower your internet goes, so they don't lose money because they don't have to give your computer any more speed...
I don't understand how people can live with dl limits nowadays.

Because not everyone lives in the US.

In any case, I'd hate to have internet that goes slower the more you use it!

Edited by Dangerous_Dave, 23 January 2012 - 01:45 AM.

[icuurd12b42]

In Canada we struggle to find one that does not have capping. Just another scheme to supplement profits. The main providers adopted this scheme... and they even do it to other providers as other providers must use the main provider's network so they are capped to so they must cap us (Because Bell Canada owns all our arses), so no provider I talked with can offer a limitless setup.

[gamereality]

In Australia we suffer from slower speeds. However, most of the providers are flat rate ($70 p/m, $110 p/m with phone for 8000 kbits/s speed and 50 GB/month download limit), meaning once you go over the cap, they limit your speed (in this case, to 256 kbits/s). Some places have ADSL2+ though, which is good, but we never get more than 50% of the speed we're meant to.