taylorlb

DMB may not be the "most popular" but they did sell more tickets than any other act in North America over the last 10 years

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/index.ssf/2010/01/d...

Phish and DMB share the same manager

I shall re-work my previous comment then... that's the last time I mention something off topic and vague here again. I shall save my nonsense for other forums.

man, I really had no idea how unpopular that comment was going to be! Last time I mention that show ever again.

Jacob confronted by the Man in Black

There's not a lot of "let's do this just to do it" going on in Hollywood. Think about it: at it's root level, the film business is FAR more money driven than the tech community at large is (Silicon Valley can be just as nasty as Hollywood, but that's not everyone). Hollywood is structured in such a way that doesn't reward collaboration and sharing (at all) but instead rewards exclusivity and cut throat behavior at every level. There isn't exactly a large and thriving open source film making movement out there. Very few outsiders are breaking into Hollywood in the way they are in the tech world.

Or to put it in the simplest terms, don't shit where you eat.

For further exploration of the parallels between the drug game and the rest of the game: check out the wonderful section of Freakonomics that's devoted to breaking down how successful crack dealing gangs conduct business.

The bike snob anti-new-minimalism thread is highly entertaining and informative. The idea that those suffering from extreme poverty are the ultimate minimalists puts the recent "wearing minimalism on your sleeve" trend in perspective IMO.

My feeling: we are already so close to hitting the lock in point with Facebook, that although many projects will emerge, they will ultimately go nowhere, despite data portability and genuine interest in alternatives.

Perhaps passive radio style listening vs random access is a better way of explaining it. I think.

It's not so much that they don't want to "deal" with the changing business, it's that there aren't proper incentives in place for the people who run the companies.

Chances are, if you run a major music rights company, you get paid a large sum of money and the financial incentives are structured in such a way that it's in your best interest to simply keep the ship sailing rather than make any drastic changes. Why take risks when you can keep getting your 7 figure check? If you tried to stop the bleeding all at once, you'd most likely be shown the door.

It's important to point out that success for these companies isn't dependent on being in business with the major rights holders.

They're not rid of those freeloading networks just yet. They extended the deadline to opt in to a paid plan to August 30th this morning.

I'd be interested to hear more about this though.

I'm enjoying the comments about the lack of data in the linked article. As a tech person who works in the music industry, I've stopped reading most music business centric news as there always seems to be a lack of data driven analysis. So much of the music business is driven by a "vibe" or a "feeling" which can be great for deciding which artists to be in business with, but pretty terrible for most other important decisions.

Considering how many iPods the iTunes Music Store helped sell, I'm not sure it can be referred to as a failure. Perhaps it's a failure for the major music companies in terms of the revenue it drives for THEM (and I assume this is what Lefsetz is saying), but that wasn't the reason for creating the ITMS any more than the reason Apple launched the App Store was to drive revenue for App Developers.

Very nice. I'd love for someone to do this for cheese actually.