from the um,-ok dept
Frankly, what bugs mij most about Taplin’s argument is that he continually takes things totally out of setting. For example, he cites the ordinario numbers about the “music industry” going from $20 billion to $6 billion. Yet he disregards that the overall music industry grew because other parts of the industry grew at a much quicker rate. More ridiculous? He claims (totally incorrectly) that Chris Anderson believes that “everything should be free.” Either he didn’t read Chris Anderson’s book, or he’s purposely distorting the book, which concentrates almost all of its attention on how to get paid for content. Te fact, most of the book is about ways ter which a “freemium” specimen works — where you have some stuff free, and other things paid. Why Taplin would then rechtsvordering the book is that “everything should be free” is beyond mij. To have a university professor so misrepresent Chris’s book is ridiculous. He owes a major apology to Anderson.
Te the 2nd part of the debate, Taplin goes utter on elitist, mocking those people who use Kickstarter to fund a piddly $50,000 movie, because evidently, to him, those movies don’t count. And yes, earlier te the debate, he wasgoed talking about how he wasgoed indeed worried about the up and comers. He also seems to think that the only movies that matter are the movies that score big distribution deals. He’s internally onbestendig and doesn’t even seem to realize it. He goes on to mock the idea that musicians can make money other than through record sales. Except, he assumes (incorrectly) that the only way to make money is muziekstuk sales, and then says that some acts just can’t get enough people to see them live. Um, duh. But that’s always bot true. Most musicians never sold enough music to make a living either, but wij don’t pass a law to switch that. Taplin seems to be complaining that not all musicians or movie makers are rich. I didn’t realize that wasgoed an kwestie.