IMPORTANT - a Message from Frank Gambale

[Cleansweep]

Originally posted by MorePaul Ah, my question is a little different (it wasn't about the mechanism of the point, as such, but more specifically what the point actually was - it sounded like there might have been some talking across slightly different issues)

 

 

 

No, I understand ripping his video and uploading it is wrong. What I am saying is that the way to keep people from doing it is cut them off at the pass by not posting whole video's just a few songs so they can see how good the man is and want to learn and buy the video the song came from.

 

 

Mr. Gambale needs to understand some like seeing more than hearing and to see him in action is pretty awesome. It's one thing to hear a song and the licks but to see them is different. The idea is to market both ways. At this point in time Mr. Gambale is only marketing himself with audio. With the video's it would be a whole new place of marketing that younger people enjoy more or most of them that is.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Cleansweep No, I understand ripping his video and uploading it is wrong. I fear that you suspect I have some agenda and am setting some kind of rhetorical trap -- I'm not What I am is confused about when you mentioned the upload proscription notice if you are talking about the Content A (lthe "free stuff", essentialy advertsiging) or Content B (the "for sale" stuff) What I am saying is that the way to keep people from doing it is cut them off at the past by not posting whole video's just a few songs so they can see how good the man is and want to learn and buy the video the song came from. it sounds as if you are talking about "content A" type material as opposed to "conent B" type material there - is that the case? Mr. Gambale needs to understand some like seeing more than hearing and to see him is action is pretty awesome. It's on thing to hear a song and the licks but to see them is different. The idea is to market both ways. At this point in time Mr. Gambale is only marketing himself with audio. With the video's it would be a whole new place of marketing that younger people enjoy more or most of them that is.

 

 

That's the advertising part driving demand which is great, but that seems more abt increasing demand as oppossed to piracy disincentive

how do you see it (enhancing demand through "free content") playing out with the segment of enhanced demand being satisfied through piracy type concept?

[SE1081]

obsolete marketing, plain and simple.

he needs to make it where downloaded material has a license. Let people look at it a few times and make it expire.

you can't keep on doing to the same thing forever....boat, trains, planes....what's next? Planes crushed the train industry after the depression.

gotta have new, better idea to make it...that's life!

lawsuits will only get you so far. use that energy to have that next idea.

[Cleansweep]

Originally posted by MorePaul That's the advertising part driving demand which is great, but that seems more abt increasing demand as oppossed to piracy disincentive how do you see it (enhancing demand through "free content") playing out with the segment of enhanced demand being satisfied through piracy type concept?

 

 

 

Ok, then

 

 

Here is the best idea. If you go to Frank Gambale's site he has a place where you buy and download MP'3 files at a range of about 99 cents to a 1.49 cents price. Why not upload the four video songs and make it so one is free and one must pay to download the other three songs at about the same price as the MP3's.

 

That way they get a taste of the videos and Frank makes some money at the sametime.

 

I think that would cover it no?

[MorePaul]

That way they get a taste of the videos and Frank makes some money at the sametime.

 

I think that would cover it no?

 

I'm not sure it addresses the issue of the "content A" advertising acting as a piracy disincentive for "Content B"

 

How do you see it playing out in the content piracy issues? (as opposed to just general traffic generating)

 

[i'm jut trying to clarify how this all ties together]

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by SE1081 obsolete marketing, plain and simple. he needs to make it where downloaded material has a license. Let people look at it a few times and make it expire.

 

 

As usual, the porn industry is the early adopter (if not the driver!)

[Cleansweep]

Originally posted by MorePaul That way they get a taste of the videos and Frank makes some money at the sametime. I think that would cover it no? I'm not sure it addresses the issue of the "content A" advertising acting as a piracy disincentive for "Content B" How do you see it playing out in the content piracy issues? (as opposed to just general traffic generating)

 

 

 

Look at it this way. When Mr. Gambale started the area on his site where one can download MP'3 if one pays for them he had to know some of those songs would get passed around the internet so there are piracy issues there. If would be the samething with the video but it would only be four songs.

 

 

The bigger picture [sorry for the pun] here is letting people see him play and that will drive them to want to buy his video's.

 

They will see how well he plays and want to learn. The idea here is marketing his teaching video's and driving people to buy his other work.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Cleansweep



Look at it this way. When Mr. Gambale started the area on his site where one can download MP'3 if one pays for them he had to know some of those songs would get passed around the internet so there are piracy issues there. If would be the samething with the video but it would only be four songs.

Ah, so that's the content A stuff

But how do you see it playing out with the content B stuff (the original upload that got the ball rolling was Content B stuff)?

Whereas content A piracy probably isn't a big of a deal





The bigger picture [sorry for the pun] here is letting people see him play and that will drive them to want to buy his video's.

They will see how well he plays and want to learn. The idea here is marketing his teaching video's and driving people to buy his other work.

That part I understand, I mean it' just advertising
but how do you see it playing as a piracy disincentive? (or do you)

It really calls back to Auggie question

It's a good idea, although I don't know how much of a difference it would make in terms of illegal downloads at this point


Which I read (or posibly misread) as a question about impact on "content B"
(which really seems where the piracy would really hit...no o much "who' this?", but "Oh he's good, time to hit the torrents" or what-have-you)

advertising and piracy just seem somewhat divergent

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by Cleansweep Look at it this way. When Mr. Gambale started the area on his site where one can download MP'3 if one pays for them he had to know some of those songs would get passed around the internet so there are piracy issues there. If would be the samething with the video but it would only be four songs.

 

 

It would only be four songs...until someone buys the whole video, rips it, and shares it. How many people had copies of the latest McStar Wars online and shared before the movie even came out, despite all the warnings?

 

From what I can tell, people aren't satisifed being half a pirate; they want the peg leg, the eye patch, AND the parrot, even if they get the 'arrgh' and 'ahoy ye matey' for free legally.

[MorePaul]

Ah, fewer words....clearer communication


What the assho...I mean Auggie said was more to the question I wasn't clear on

[Cleansweep]

Originally posted by MorePaul Originally posted by Cleansweep Look at it this way. When Mr. Gambale started the area on his site where one can download MP'3 if one pays for them he had to know some of those songs would get passed around the internet so there are piracy issues there. If would be the samething with the video but it would only be four songs. Ah, so that's the content A stuff But how do you see it playing out with the content B stuff (the original upload that got the ball rolling was Content B stuff)? Whereas content A piracy probably isn't a big of a deal The bigger picture [sorry for the pun] here is letting people see him play and that will drive them to want to buy his video's. They will see how well he plays and want to learn. The idea here is marketing his teaching video's and driving people to buy his other work. That part I understand, I mean it' just advertising but how do you see it playing as a piracy disincentive? (or do you) advertising and piracy just seem somewhat divergent I just went to You Tube where the Content B stuff was uploaded and it's all gone now. Mr. Gambale made it known he did not like it so the Content B stuff is gone. I think if Mr. Gambale has video Content A on his site Content B would not be a problem or a little one at that.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Cleansweep I just went to You Tube where the Content B stuff was uploaded and it's all gone now. Mr. Gambale made it known he did not like it so the Content B stuff is gone. I think if Mr. Gambale has video Content A on his site Content B would not be a problem or a little one at that.

 

 

 

AH, OK - it's just that I wasn't clear on (if you felt that the free content would act a piracy disincentive for the paid content)

[Cleansweep]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie It would only be four songs...until someone buys the whole video, rips it, and shares it. How many people had copies of the latest McStar Wars online and shared before the movie even came out, despite all the warnings. From what I can tell, people aren't satisifed being half a pirate; they want the peg leg, the eye patch, AND the parrot, even if they get the 'arrgh' and 'ahoy ye matey' for free legally.

 

 

 

I just covered that. I don't think many will rip the whole video after hearing Mr. Gambale make it clear he was angry. If they do, I say let the law have at them.

[Cleansweep]

Originally posted by MorePaul AH, OK - it's just that I wasn't clear on (if you felt that the free content would act a piracy disincentive for the paid content)

 

 

 

By the way, are you still speaking for Frank or for yourself? I mean are you asking these questions or is he asking them through you?

 

 

Just wanted to know thanks.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by MorePaul What the assho...I mean Auggie said was more to the question I wasn't clear on

:eek:

[typedeaF]

Why is it that actors/resses get paid lump sums to make a movie and musicians are forced to live off royalties? Is this the way it is? Why didnt Gambale or anyone say "Video lesson? $20,000 upfront." and be done with it? He might charge $80/hr for normal private lessons. This video is what, 1-2 hrs? Lets pretend it took him 8 hrs to shoot it. $640 is what it cost him in his time to make. Let round it up to a nice $1,000. That video at $40, even if he only gets 10% royalties, paid for itself after 250 sales. I think its safe to bet that at least 5 people from every US state bought this video? Or how about just 1 from every country + 1 from every US state? Anyway, I think Franks time has been paid for by now. Pretend he doesnt have a big record label, and he has to do just like every other musician out there in the world and bust their ass playing almost every night. Was Bach or Mozart making money hand over fist? It wasnt until the invention of the radio and TV that musicians ever could have dreamed of becoming wealthy by playing music. Pop artists and sports figures all learned to be smart and market themselves in clothing lines, beverages, etc. If you want to make money in this day and age, you better not rely on a source that can be easily pirated. Cry about it all you want, but its not going to earn you any more money. Thats just the facts.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by typedeaF
Why is it that actors/resses get paid lump sums to make a movie and musicians are forced to live off royalties?


actors actually do get royalties ("residuals") remember that SAG strike about 5-6 years ago?

[Cleansweep]

Originally posted by MorePaul Originally posted by typedeaF Why is it that actors/resses get paid lump sums to make a movie and musicians are forced to live off royalties? actors actually do get royalties ("residuals") remember that SAG strike about 5-6 years ago? Well Paul, are you asking or Mr. Gambale? Thanks

[MorePaul]

ME!

If Mr.Gambale requests that I post something for him
-- I'll totally call it out as being such

... just as I would if you asked me to post something -- I would extend you the same courtesy - as I would to anyone.

it was merely a technical favor as he couldn't login (I think HC's gotten more restrictive to avoid shills...stuff like not allowing you to register off a "free" email -- that kind of stuff) and as such I have a duty to attribute the comments appropriately and as I received them



Gosh it didn't seem like a loaded question (more a musing than a question)
I was just sort of a harken back to that strike -- I just seem to remember the big hoo-ha there was over residuals

Once again, I don't have an agenda in that comment, but wa just calling attention to reiduals

I realize that internweb forums often fall victim to weird manipulations and statements with alterior motives -- which can really {censored} up just plain dicussion

this isn't one of those times


You're most welcome, though I don't think thanks is particularly in order
If the thank was for being a contributing member, I'm happy to do so!
If the thanks was for a policy of disclosure as to opennes of the source of comments, I consider it a personal requirement - so no thanks needed there

[sethfire]

Originally posted by PRSnotPOS Also shouldn't the incentive to make music be your love for it and not the money??? I'm not sticking up for piracy but I just think that if you are making music just to make money you should probably find a different career.

 

 

 

i agree 100 percent, its metallica all over again

[Cleansweep]

Originally posted by MorePaul ME! If Mr.Gambale requests -- I'll totally call it out as being such ... just as I would if you asked me to post something -- I would extend you the same courtesy it was merely a technical favor as he couldn't login (I think HC's gotten more restrictive to avoid shills...stuff like not allowing you to register off a "free" email -- that kind of stuff) Gosh it didn't seem like a loaded question (more a musing than a question) I was just sort of a harken back to that strike -- I just seem to remember the big hoo-ha there was over residuals Once again, I don't have an agenda in that comment, but wa just calling attention to reiduals I realize that internweb forums often fall victim to weird manipulations and statements with alterior motives -- which can really {censored} up just plain dicussion this isn't one of those times You're most welcome, though I don't think thanks is particularly in order If the thank was for being a contributing member, I'm happy to do so! If the thanks was for a policy of disclosure as to opennes of the source of comments, I consider it a personal requirement - so no thanks needed there

 

 

 

Ok, thanks Paul

 

 

Let me just say, as a Gambale fan, I hope he does update his site with a video area like we have been talking about. The way he plays those songs I talked about in his video's are awesome. I think if people saw them they would really dig Gambale's playing.

 

 

I really do think it would be a very smart move on his part.

[MorePaul]

My pleasure - no thanks needed, we're having a good discussion, that' why we're here!


I hear ya - I think that'd totally be an appropriate thing to shoot by him on his email and I bet he'd appreciate the feedback

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by MorePaul we're having a good discussion

Well, we were until you called me names. :cry:

[MorePaul]

That's a good point - let's discuss Auggie's feeling - why they are wrong and how he's bad for having them

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by sethfire i agree 100 percent, its metallica all over again

 

 

It's an instructional video. You're supposed to learn from it.

 

If you go to a university and tell them you want to take classes and get a degree, but you refuse to pay for anything, what do you think they'll say to you? What if everyone (the slippery slope!) did the same thing? The school would soon go out of business, and you'd have to take your classes and get your degree elsewhere. So you go to a second school, tell them you want classes and a degree, but that you refuse to pay for it...when this repeats itself enough, all the schools are closed down, and nobody gets an education or a degree.

 

If you go to a guitar teacher and tell him you want to take lessons, but that you won't pay him for his time, what do you think he'll tell you?

 

If you go to the library, grab a bunch of books, and leave without signing them out, and tell the librarian you have no intention of returning them, what do you think she'll say?

 

 

People seem to think they are simply entitled to take (not buy, take) what they want, with little to no regard for how it affects anyone else in the short OR long term. Did the meaning of the word 'value' change when I wasn't looking?