Woot acquired by Amazon, announces it with a rapping monkey video

[mattbell]

Yes, companies can get silly when they get bought out.  However, when the company is already silly all the time, they get even sillier.

Here's an overview by the NYT. 

Comments

[sarcazm.livejournal.com]

woot! is actually really close to where my boyfriend and i live, and when we were carpooling to work together we drove by it everyday. it's unfortunate they were in the middle of getting bought out and whatnot, since i'm looking for a job and they seem like decent dudes to merchandise for.

[dixiemouse.livejournal.com]

*grumbles string of obscenities directed at Amazon*

[inferno0069.livejournal.com]

Why?

[dixiemouse.livejournal.com]

They are as big a conglomerate as google and the other orgs that people get "nervous" or rally against (for having "too much power" or being "too big")...

But MAINLY, because I am in the entertainment industry and they are slowly but surely taking over a very large portion of it... and am HUGELY offended at the way they have changed IMDb... that now you can buy your way on there and it pisses me off to no end, as I busted tail to get my credits on there and now there is a kid w/ the same name as I do, but the only reason she is there is because her spot was bought.

[inferno0069.livejournal.com]

While I don't like power being too concentrated either, and Google can definitely give that feeling, I don't feel it from Amazon, and definitely not in the case of buying Woot. Woot will operate independently, whereas Google's acquisitions (only kind-of including Youtube) tend to close their independent operations and merge fully with the rest of Google. My response to this is subjective, though, so I certainly don't have any reason to expect you to agree.

I don't know anything about IMDb's role in anyone buying their way onto the site, and if they sell the ability to be listed in a fraudulent-ish way, I don't like it. But even if they didn't do that and did hard research to make sure to only list people who really were involved with a film (or other work) it seems like it should be pretty easy for someone to buy in to a credited role and get listed that way. It certainly is now with the Internet (I /accidentally/ stumbled across something like this a month or two ago: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/n8r/when-im-alone-become-a-producer-on-a-chicago-in?pos=2 ) and similar opportunities have probably always existed. Anyone looking through IMDb or movie credits should probably already be doing extra checks to verify any assumptions they may make from them.

[shandrew.livejournal.com]

A couple examples, from a couple well-known authors:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/amazon-macmillan-an-outsiders.html
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/01/30/a-quick-note-on-ebook-pricing/

[inferno0069.livejournal.com]

Amazon lost that battle. It's a bad example if you want to say that Amazon has power (and if not, then I'm not sure why you brought it up).

As for the specifics of that battle, while Amazon chose a particularly stupid tactic that harmed everybody, in the bigger picture of the dispute I was firmly on Amazon's side (in my head, at least; I have no real power over them, Apple, or the publishers or authors), their side being the side of variable, generally lower, customer-friendly pricing for books, and higher royalties for authors (really, Amazon was losing money on ebooks, giving more money to publishers, authors, and customers). Personally, I like being able to sell books on eBay, to used book stores, etc. at a price I and the buyer can agree on, instead of on a price the publisher sets, but the latter's what's happening now for ebooks.

Amazon is fighting for the status quo, a more consumer-friendly price of $9.99 for books that are locked into its DRMed hardware platform. Macmillan's CEO argues that his preferred pricing model encourages "healthy competition" and would lead to the "long-term viability and stability" of the e-book market.
What he fails to mention is that Macmillan is also free to continue charging Amazon whatever it likes for a product that costs less to produce and distribute than the dead-tree models. If Amazon wants to take a loss on each e-book for its own reasons, that should be its choice to make.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/books-disappear-from-amazon-as-old-media-battles-new-retail.ars
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/02/publishers-continue-pummeling-amazon-over-e-book-prices.ars

[dixiemouse.livejournal.com]

(sorry for late response, but 1. kinda forgot about this post; 2. got busy)

Buying a producer role has been around for quite some time HOWEVER, just because you make a movie does NOT guarantee you can get listed on IMDb. IMDB does have {some} requirements for getting a project listed. Now, with Amazon buying them, Withoutabox (a electronic submition hub for film festivals), as well as creating Amazon Video on Demand (and they have another distribution vehicle that I am blanking on the name of at the moment), it does make it easier for the average schmuck to get listed as a producer.

My complaint comes in more under talent wing. For eaxample:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1781069/
VS.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3649451/

What do you see? One has actual credits and an additional resume (of projects that have not qualified for IMDb status, or only more recently have) the other? ONLY the paid for IMDb resume. Modeling (or, if the person taht posted this for the child was a professional, it should be listed as print work) is NOT something IMDb lists. (the exception to that is Victoria's Secret runway shows... BUT since that gets aired, that's why.)

Everyone knows that producer credits are questionable, at best (hence why years ago, they got limited to 3 for Oscar Time, and when submitting for consideration, especially if you want more than that to get a little paperweight, there has to be proof of who put in the most money, most time on set, and most time promoting... so that way there are no longer 50 people getting statues, when 47 of them really just gave price breaks on rentals/locations or some other "hook up" or just wanted to throw in $50 to say they made a Hollywood movie and get blown by a starlet that thinks it will help with his/her career)... it's the cast and crew (as usual) that gets screwed in this deal.