[rumori] matt groening

Reed [rumori] matt groening
Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:00:09 -0500 (EST) (00917560809, Pine.LNX.3.93.990128161559.4306J-100000atbugg.static.net)

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Steev wrote:


>
> Okay, here i go, reading a magazine that sucks again. I swear (really!) i
> don't usually read Wired (er, i mean, "Conde Naste's CyberCommodities for

i read wired. not as interesting to me as it used to be, though.
just got that issue.
here's REWIRED : http://www.rewired.com : i read it every now and then.

> Groening: ...Audiences expand the mythologies of a creator's
> world.
>

that's the big huge quote they put at the beginning of the magazine- it's
continued "we succeed when we give them something worthy of their devotion". the klf immediatly popped into my mind at the word "mythology" (probably because i'm obsessed)


> G: Personally, I don't have a problem with it. This is part of the price
> of being successful and being part of the culture [exactly!! -smh].

he (conciously or uncounciously (<-- by automatically saying it)) sees it as a "price" a sacrifice. i'd see it as a compliment and free advertising (if the thing they "stole" were a good enough symbol/image-unit).


> vigourously defend their copyright or they lose it. I don't care if
> some kids appropriate my stuff for their Web site, or some fraternity guys
> make a bootleg Bart T-shirt. But when people are making millions
> of dollars just ripping you off, then legally you have to go

are they really "ripping you off", maliciously trying to harm you? i suppose they are just "ripping you off" by capturing marketshare that would otherwise be yours as the creator. sucks for you, but, if they're
better at selling your stuff, maybe it's time to come up with new stuff.
or make a deal with them.

> after them. I have been accused of being a bigbad guy because Fox > has come down heavily on people. All I can say is, I don't own
> the copyright on The Simpsons - Fox does.
>

"doh!"

> K: But you agree in principle with halting professional counterfeits?
>
> G: This is a confusing area. Bart has been appropriated to promote the
> vegetarian cause, which I have sympathy for, as well as neo-Nazi
> skinhead stuff, which I don't. While I am delighted that so many
> jpeople feel Bart is speaking to them, I am not happy about
> the Nazi stuff.
>

yeah, this is too bad. this is the price of success: lots of people
know and love your stuff and want to use it, and lots of those lots of
people are not like you.


here's what groeing says about advertising:

==

Is there anything you've changed your mind about in the last 20
years?

I used to be amused by how pervasive advertising was in our society. But
seeing ads on the little divider bars on the conveyer belts at grocery
store checkouts made me think, That's enough. I read _Future_Shock_ in
the eary 70s and said, Future shock will never happen to me. It has. At
least in regart to advertising.

==

advertising, though, seems to be the best method of making money when you
distribute your information for free, it's easiest and most natural state
these days (IMHO), especially on the internet. i work with a guy who
publishes a progressive art, style, culture, etc. magazine in boston,
which is distributed freely, placed in little stacks in coffee houses,
book stores, certain retail sotres. (it's called shovel, web page (the
part i do) is www.shovel.net.) all money is made from advertisements (a
little from subscription fees). however, because of the content of the
magazine, the advertisers tend to be people/places/things that readers
might be interested in anyway- cool pubs, bars, clubs and resturants,
record stores, and the mysterious "mang studios".
there is a constant struggle for balance between enough advertising to
keep the magazine going, and not overwhelming the magazine with ads.
shovel's main competitors (stuff, improper bostonian, stuffatnight,
phoenix) (which are all really crappy and three, plus bostons
""alternative"" radio station are owned by this phoenix corporation) have lots of ads. in stuff, every right hand page is an ad, while every left
hand page has actual content.
shovel tries not to do that... in order to stay alive, we've had to get
more advertisers, but hopefully the ads are layed-out in a not-so-annoying
fashion.

when you give away free stuff, how do you make money? by
1. advertising
2. giving away things (usually tacky crap) which will get people to buy
other things from you
3. fooling rich people into giving you money for no real reason (ie,
yahoo, hotmail, whatever)

1 is the best answer. if they are good ads for good stuff, than i guess
okay.

end of ramble.

rh http://www.zerohour.net/reed ...........................................................................


________________________
http://detritus.net