former Chief Operating Officer of New Music at EMI says limewire pirates were best itunes customers

[gideongallery]

http://torrentfreak.com/former-googl...tomers-110726/

During his stint at EMI, Merrill profiled the behavior of LimeWire users and discovered something rather interesting. Those same file-sharing ?thieves? were also iTunes? biggest spenders.

?That?s not theft, that?s try-before-you-buy marketing and we weren?t even paying for it? so it makes sense to sue them,? Merrill said, while undoubtedly rolling his eyes.

[Agent 488]

don't feel bad about the torrents i'm downloading now. thanks.

[L-Pink]

Oh jeez .....

[justinsain]

How would one go about acquiring the data to support such a statement?

My first thought is you would have to know the identity of a pirate, then have their records to show what and how much they pirated then you would need their records as to what they actually purchased and paid for.

Is that kind of information readily available for comparison?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by justinsain

How would one go about acquiring the data to support such a statement?

My first thought is you would have to know the identity of a pirate, then have their records to show what and how much they pirated then you would need their records as to what they actually purchased and paid for.

Is that kind of information readily available for comparison?

interesting question

[Serge Litehead]

He profiled his close relatives and buddies, 100% solid stats

[Serge Litehead]

the only way this can be explained is those users got ipods and iphones and were 'forced' to use itunes to load stuff on them. if those users could figure out the way to do it without itunes they wouldn't purchase through itunes in the first place.

your argument is just matching one thing to support your ideology without giving too much thought why it actually happened.
has nothing to do with 'try-before-you-buy'

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by justinsain

How would one go about acquiring the data to support such a statement?

My first thought is you would have to know the identity of a pirate, then have their records to show what and how much they pirated then you would need their records as to what they actually purchased and paid for.

Is that kind of information readily available for comparison?

it's limewire not torrents

you created an account like napster
which means you had a hell of a lot more data to track when you sued the company for the records.

emi was part of said suit and therefore had access to that data

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

it's limewire not torrents

you created an account like napster
which means you had a hell of a lot more data to track when you sued the company for the records.

emi was part of said suit and therefore had access to that data

There's a small problem with your theory of how he came upon the data to support his assertion.

In the torrent freak article, it says Merrill profiled Limewire users "during his stint at EMI."

Merrill was forced out his job by EMI in March of 2009. EMI sued Limewire in June of 2010. Discovery in that case would not have started for several months thereafter.

So... did EMI give Merrill access to the data obtained through discovery in their lawsuit after he was fired, or do you think he came up with the data to support his assertions through some other means? I suspect the latter is the case, myself.

EMI was not a party in the RIAA suit against Limewire that kicked up in 2009, btw, so you can forget about them having obtained the relevant data that way, too.

I'm not saying he's wrong in his conclusion, btw (I would not be at all surprised if it were true). I'm just saying that he could not have obtained the data in question the way you think he did.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Quentin

There's a small problem with your theory of how he came upon the data to support his assertion.

In the torrent freak article, it says Merrill profiled Limewire users "during his stint at EMI."

Merrill was forced out his job by EMI in March of 2009. EMI sued Limewire in June of 2010. Discovery in that case would not have started for several months thereafter.

So... did EMI give Merrill access to the data obtained through discovery in their lawsuit after he was fired, or do you think he came up with the data to support his assertions through some other means? I suspect the latter is the case, myself.

EMI was not a party in the RIAA suit against Limewire that kicked up in 2009, btw, so you can forget about them having obtained the relevant data that way, too.

I'm not saying he's wrong in his conclusion, btw (I would not be at all surprised if it were true). I'm just saying that he could not have obtained the data in question the way you think he did.

where are you getting your information about the cases

http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA...acy/1154722015

this happened in 2006

EMI was in the original case

ccording to legal documents filed last week with a New York federal court, Lime Wire and founder Mark Gorton agreed to pay Merlin members an amount that was in line with whatever Lime Wire ended up paying to settle with the four major music labels. In 2007, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and EMI Music accused the company of cashing in on a service designed to help people pirate music.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20...ol;mlt_related

[Agent 488]

he does not state where he got the information from.

[Rochard]

I don't think this is a "try before you buy" type of system. I think the majority of the users ripped music without ever having paying for it.

Rhapsody is a "try before you buy" type of deal. I pay $70 a year to stream whatever music I wish, and part of that is kicked back to the recording companies. (This recently changed being as I was an original Rhapsody member, back in the day when your MP3 could only fit three songs on it - Rhapsody was free to use for me for years.) On average, above and beyond what I spend a year to stream, I also buy about $50 of music, song by song.

It's a really good system being as I buy both new music, and older music from the 70s and 80s that you can't buy on CD these days.

The record companies completely fucked up here. Instead of making it easier to buy music and cutting their costs by delivering it online directly to the consumers and cutting out the usual costs and middle men, they locked everything down. In the end a handful of companies - iTunes and Rhapsody - are now the places to buy music, which takes a huge cut of the profits. They fucked up.

[Rochard]

And do you know what pisses me off? Is some of the artists were in on this - locking down their music.

Kid Rock is a great example. He had videos on YouTube about how bad illegal downloading was, yet at the same time his music was not for sale on iTunes and not for sale on Rhapsody. I could listen to his music for free on fucking YouTube, but could not buy it legally online no matter what.

These artists failed to understand how they could benefit from this.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

where are you getting your information about the cases

http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA...acy/1154722015

this happened in 2006

EMI was in the original case




http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20...ol;mlt_related

Hmm... the ruling in the RIAA case doesn't list EMI as being among the plaintiffs, that's why I thought they weren't a party to the case. I definitely got the date wrong, though; in a different source I looked at earlier, I misread the date of publication of the Court's decision as the date of filing. Sorry about that!

Having said that, while it sure sounds like EMI and the other labels referenced in that article accused Limewire in 2007, it also looks to me they didn't actually file their case until 2010, and as such, discovery in that case could not have started prior to 2010.

It's also possible that there was an earlier case filed by EMI, but not fully adjudicated, and what I'm looking at is a later filing. I can't find any evidence that's the case, though.

At any rate, I don't think Merrill's conclusion is outlandish, regardless of the source of his claim. I just think it's a bit unlikely that the source of the data was discovery in any lawsuit.

What the heck... I know some of the attorneys involved in these cases; I'll just ask around and find out for sure.

[seeandsee]

still lime fucker own some % of fb and his cock is rided by hot chicks

[JamesGw]

Piracy is a really weird phenomenon. I think in regard to music, Limewire and Napster were just the first ones to jump on digital distribution. People wanted to be able to download individual songs that they liked. For some, it obviously had to do with price, but for a lot of people it was just a convenience thing. There's a reason why iTunes is so huge.

The same goes for movies. People want to be able to stream movies online. The price isn't a huge issue. This is why Netflix is so popular. As they continue to expand their library, I think we'll see a lot of people that were pirating move over to Netflix.

Video games too! I used to buy video games once in a while, but I pirated a lot of them. I still usually download a game before I buy it to make sure it works, but with over 60 games on my steam account, I don't think many people could label me as a thief. I just like to know what I'm getting myself into. That said, Steam's expanding library has made it easier to get games digitally, which is really all I wanted.

I think piracy, especially early piracy, catered to two different types of people. Those who wanted digital distribution and those who didn't want to pay. There will always be people who don't want to pay, but there's not much we can do about that. Nowadays, media is becoming more available online. I think piracy will drop (or remain level while online sales increase) as this happens.

Porn's a little bit different. I think a centralized VOD / streaming service would probably be best. AEBN is good, but I think it'd do better with a flat monthly fee for all of the content. I could be wrong.

[L-Pink]

Quit trying to sugar coat theft.

[Klen]

Lol what a nonsense,of course they are best customers since they need to get somewhere content to pirate it further,same goes with porn pirates which probably have accounts on many paysites,but they also release content on pirate sites very fast.

[DatingGold]

he's full of shit

[PR_Glen]

where is the mystery here? they were building lawsuits against people, how do you do that without getting names? When you run the same names through the itunes database you look for matches... problem solved....

[Babaganoosh]

I guarantee that for every pirate that buys a few songs on itunes there are thousands more that never buy a single song. I have no data to back up that statement but neither does that guy.

[cybermike]

You know whats awesome.. spotify you can listen to whole albums! You pay the monthly fee to get to listen to it on your mobile device

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh

I guarantee that for every pirate that buys a few songs on itunes there are thousands more that never buy a single song. I have no data to back up that statement but neither does that guy.

I guarantee you that Gideon solely posts here in order to wind up the easy-to-wind-up.

He is pointless.

If everyone just stopped replying to him, he'd stop.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh

I guarantee that for every pirate that buys a few songs on itunes there are thousands more that never buy a single song. I have no data to back up that statement but neither does that guy.

your guarantee something you have no data that back up your statement

btw he does have data to back up his statement

emi would have records of sales from their itunes payout info

and they most certainly have access to the records they got from 2006 suit they were involved in

[bronco67]

I'm really starting to think torrentfreak is making up these ridiculous fucking articles.

[V_RocKs]

Movies and songs are a different ballgame where try before you buy is concerned

[Babaganoosh]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

your guarantee something you have no data that back up your statement

btw he does have data to back up his statement

emi would have records of sales from their itunes payout info

and they most certainly have access to the records they got from 2006 suit they were involved in

Are you really as dumb as you pretend to be? Seriously, is this an act? If you're trolling just say so and I can play along.

[L-Pink]

More mindless dribble from a content thief.

.

[iamtam]

please note that this jackass was also a past google guy. they love free.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Movies and songs are a different ballgame where try before you buy is concerned

you might want to check out box office results of wolverine

the work print was released months before the full release

and they had amazing numbers

lots of people saw the entire work print and still went to see the full movie in theaters because they wanted to see what it look like completed

the 3d issue is the same sort of upsell

btw that problem is solved by access shifting

if you can get it legally on the same day from every source (including free from bit torrent) piracy would not exist at all.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh

Are you really as dumb as you pretend to be? Seriously, is this an act? If you're trolling just say so and I can play along.

your making wild unproven claim and guarantee them and then argue that original arguement has no proof either.

really think about how stupid your statement is

for every pirate who buy a single song on itunes you claiming there a 1000 people who have NEVER bought a single song.

so that would mean they never bought a song before napster
they will live 70 years plus and always find every song for free and so fast it would be cheaper to just spend a buck.

they will never find a single band they want to support by buying the music

and never every come across the dozens of musicians who have been properly trained on how to convert piracy traffic into sales.

[Quentin]

I understand the reflexive rejection of Doug Merrill's claims by most of the people who have posted in this thread, but suppose for a moment that he has actual data to back up that claim?

If your opposition to piracy is founded on the notion that people who obtain content from pirated sources never purchase the same sort of content, or do so only in insignificant numbers, then I can see why you don't like Merrill's point, one bit.

IMO, however, even If Merrill is right, that doesn't mean that piracy isn't a problem, and it doesn't mean that Limewire should not have been held liable in the cases they lost.

I'm trying to find out, definitively, what Merrill's assertion is based on. I'm inclined to withhold judgment on what he said until I have a better sense of his methodology and sources.

I think it's also important to remember that just because any given person who illegally obtains content is also a frequent purchaser of that same manner of content, that fact doesn't magically make them less liable for copyright infringement, if and when they engage in actual copyright infringement. As such, it's very much possible to acknowledge that Merrill's assertion might be true and still think it's right and proper to hold people accountable for copyright infringement.

In other words, conceding the fact that some pirates are also paying customers doesn't mean that one thinks piracy is "OK."

[Agent 488]

i just read he was fired from emi for making up internal reports among other things.

[Agent 488]

i have not bought one single piece of music since napster and neither has anyone i know. and not one of us has ever been a part of any statistical sample that we know of.

file sharing immaterialized a large section of the human project, now the financial system is going through it, next up will be the actual meat and bones aspects of physical production.

Originally Posted by Quentin

I understand the reflexive rejection of Doug Merrill's claims by most of the people who have posted in this thread, but suppose for a moment that he has actual data to back up that claim?

If your opposition to piracy is founded on the notion that people who obtain content from pirated sources never purchase the same sort of content, or do so only in insignificant numbers, then I can see why you don't like Merrill's point, one bit.

IMO, however, even If Merrill is right, that doesn't mean that piracy isn't a problem, and it doesn't mean that Limewire should not have been held liable in the cases they lost.

I'm trying to find out, definitively, what Merrill's assertion is based on. I'm inclined to withhold judgment on what he said until I have a better sense of his methodology and sources.

I think it's also important to remember that just because any given person who illegally obtains content is also a frequent purchaser of that same manner of content, that fact doesn't magically make them less liable for copyright infringement, if and when they engage in actual copyright infringement. As such, it's very much possible to acknowledge that Merrill's assertion might be true and still think it's right and proper to hold people accountable for copyright infringement.

In other words, conceding the fact that some pirates are also paying customers doesn't mean that one thinks piracy is "OK."

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by DatingGold

he's full of shit

i like being full of shit...

[Deputy Chief Command]

Originally Posted by holograph

the only way this can be explained is those users got ipods and iphones and were 'forced' to use itunes to load stuff on them. if those users could figure out the way to do it without itunes they wouldn't purchase through itunes in the first place.

lol, did you actually ever own an ipod ? you can download stuff "illegaly" and just load in Itunes and put it on your ipod without a problem

[Serge Litehead]

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command

lol, did you actually ever own an ipod ? you can download stuff "illegaly" and just load in Itunes and put it on your ipod without a problem

i believe there are dumb pirates in existence just as well some clever ones. if people could not figure out how to move their limewired mp3s to their iphones/ipods they had no other option but to purchase favorite tracks through itunes.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Quentin

I understand the reflexive rejection of Doug Merrill's claims by most of the people who have posted in this thread, but suppose for a moment that he has actual data to back up that claim?

If your opposition to piracy is founded on the notion that people who obtain content from pirated sources never purchase the same sort of content, or do so only in insignificant numbers, then I can see why you don't like Merrill's point, one bit.

IMO, however, even If Merrill is right, that doesn't mean that piracy isn't a problem, and it doesn't mean that Limewire should not have been held liable in the cases they lost.

I'm trying to find out, definitively, what Merrill's assertion is based on. I'm inclined to withhold judgment on what he said until I have a better sense of his methodology and sources.

I think it's also important to remember that just because any given person who illegally obtains content is also a frequent purchaser of that same manner of content, that fact doesn't magically make them less liable for copyright infringement, if and when they engage in actual copyright infringement. As such, it's very much possible to acknowledge that Merrill's assertion might be true and still think it's right and proper to hold people accountable for copyright infringement.

In other words, conceding the fact that some pirates are also paying customers doesn't mean that one thinks piracy is "OK."

piracy may be a problem but what your calling piracy isn't really piracy

i use torrents like a VCR for TV shows/movies
i can do that because the fair USE of time shifting using the cloud makes it legal

i use torrents like the radio
because i live in one of the 25 countries which have a piracy tax.

[L-Pink]

OH NO! Another attack of the free content retards!

[Deputy Chief Command]

Originally Posted by holograph

i believe there are dumb pirates in existence just as well some clever ones. if people could not figure out how to move their limewired mp3s to their iphones/ipods they had no other option but to purchase favorite tracks through itunes.

lol, you have to be really really stupid to not know how to do that .. you dont need any special skills or special program for it

you can just open the folder wit the mp3's and click and drag to itunes ..

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command

lol, you have to be really really stupid to not know how to do that .. you dont need any special skills or special program for it

you can just open the folder wit the mp3's and click and drag to itunes ..

you don't even need to do that

limewire set the download folder to my music

itunes set the default music location to the same folder

just install using the default option on both and you automagically have all your music indexed by itunes

you just need to start the program

[bronco67]

What is the problem some of you have for paying the price someone has set for their goods? You can double talk and over-rationalize some vague justification for just taking what you want(because you can), but its still stealing.

So what happens when you want a new PS3? Do you walk into Best Buy and tell them you'll buy it after you try it?

[kane]

Originally Posted by bronco67

What is the problem some of you have for paying the price someone has set for their goods? You can double talk and over-rationalize some vague justification for just taking what you want(because you can), but its still stealing.

So what happens when you want a new PS3? Do you walk into Best Buy and tell them you'll buy it after you try it?

There was a guy on torrentfreak who commented on an article that he felt the way movie theaters should work is that you wait until after the movie is over to pay. If you liked the movie and felt it was worth the money you paid. If not you didn't.

When asked he felt this should be the same for everything. You should be able to take a car, drive it for a couple of years and then decide it met your standards and pay for it. You should be able to order food, eat the full mean and then decide if it was good enough for you to pay for. If you bought a book and didn't like it you should be able to return it for a full refund. The guy was amazing and he really thought that by doing it this way it force businesses to put our higher quality products.

[Deputy Chief Command]

Originally Posted by bronco67

What is the problem some of you have for paying the price someone has set for their goods? You can double talk and over-rationalize some vague justification for just taking what you want(because you can), but its still stealing.

So what happens when you want a new PS3? Do you walk into Best Buy and tell them you'll buy it after you try it?

well, it is not like sony makes ONE PS3 and then sells it over and over again

with music .. an artist make it once .. and expects to get paid for life for that work he put in ?

fuck that , get a real job

somebody working at mc donalds can not just work once for an 8 hour shift, video tape it , and then use that for the rest of his days ?

whats the difference

artists are OVER paid, they have too much money as is .. why give them even more ?

and save me the crap about struggling artists . they are struggling because their music sucsk not because of piracy

[uno]

Originally Posted by Rochard

And do you know what pisses me off? Is some of the artists were in on this - locking down their music.

Kid Rock is a great example. He had videos on YouTube about how bad illegal downloading was, yet at the same time his music was not for sale on iTunes and not for sale on Rhapsody. I could listen to his music for free on fucking YouTube, but could not buy it legally online no matter what.

These artists failed to understand how they could benefit from this.

Metallica has to be one of the first and greatest examples of this that I can think of.

"MONEY GOOD, NAPSTER BAD!" I miss those cartoons.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command

well, it is not like sony makes ONE PS3 and then sells it over and over again

with music .. an artist make it once .. and expects to get paid for life for that work he put in ?

fuck that , get a real job

somebody working at mc donalds can not just work once for an 8 hour shift, video tape it , and then use that for the rest of his days ?

whats the difference

artists are OVER paid, they have too much money as is .. why give them even more ?

and save me the crap about struggling artists . they are struggling because their music sucsk not because of piracy

Here is why artists get paid over and over again for the thing they created: they created something that is lasting. If you make a record and it sucks and nobody buys it, 20 years from now you will not be getting paid for it. A McDonald's employee makes a burger, it gets eaten and it is gone. they have to make another. You can't buy a big mac and eat it over and over again and again and nobody is going to go pay to see a McDonald's employee work (which is what you are doing when you pay to see a concert live).

If you make a record that has a lasting impact and people are still buying it 10, 20, 30 years after you made it why shouldn't you get paid for it? Artists are paid what they earn. Yes, there are some who sign big contracts and never live up to them and are overpaid, but most of them who have millions of dollars have that money because people plunk down their hard earned money to see them.

Answer me this: If a chef comes up with a bunch of great recipes and builds a kick ass menu around it and then opens up a restaurant using those recipes then they hire managers to run the place and they just step back and let it all work should they only get paid for the first batch of customers through the door? Ten years later if they still own the restaurant and the restaurant is still using those recipes should then not get paid? that is what a record it. You record it, it goes out and if it sells you get paid. Over the years if it continues to sell the distributor pays someone to make more copies of it and they sell them. You deserve to be paid for that.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Here is why artists get paid over and over again for the thing they created: they created something that is lasting. If you make a record and it sucks and nobody buys it, 20 years from now you will not be getting paid for it. A McDonald's employee makes a burger, it gets eaten and it is gone. they have to make another. You can't buy a big mac and eat it over and over again and again and nobody is going to go pay to see a McDonald's employee work (which is what you are doing when you pay to see a concert live).

If you make a record that has a lasting impact and people are still buying it 10, 20, 30 years after you made it why shouldn't you get paid for it? Artists are paid what they earn. Yes, there are some who sign big contracts and never live up to them and are overpaid, but most of them who have millions of dollars have that money because people plunk down their hard earned money to see them.

Answer me this: If a chef comes up with a bunch of great recipes and builds a kick ass menu around it and then opens up a restaurant using those recipes then they hire managers to run the place and they just step back and let it all work should they only get paid for the first batch of customers through the door? Ten years later if they still own the restaurant and the restaurant is still using those recipes should then not get paid? that is what a record it. You record it, it goes out and if it sells you get paid. Over the years if it continues to sell the distributor pays someone to make more copies of it and they sell them. You deserve to be paid for that.

of course nothing stops you from selling your stuff if it also available for download for free on the torrents

open source companies like red hat do it all the time.

your trying to defend government granted monopoly control

if a restaurant in your example was the only place you could get chicken i would object to that too.

[Babaganoosh]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

your making wild unproven claim and guarantee them and then argue that original arguement has no proof either.

really think about how stupid your statement is

for every pirate who buy a single song on itunes you claiming there a 1000 people who have NEVER bought a single song.

so that would mean they never bought a song before napster
they will live 70 years plus and always find every song for free and so fast it would be cheaper to just spend a buck.

they will never find a single band they want to support by buying the music

and never every come across the dozens of musicians who have been properly trained on how to convert piracy traffic into sales.

He doesn't have enough data to come to any meaningful conclusions.

I guess you really are that dumb.

[Deputy Chief Command]

Originally Posted by kane

Here is why artists get paid over and over again for the thing they created: they created something that is lasting. If you make a record and it sucks and nobody buys it, 20 years from now you will not be getting paid for it. A McDonald's employee makes a burger, it gets eaten and it is gone. they have to make another. You can't buy a big mac and eat it over and over again and again and nobody is going to go pay to see a McDonald's employee work (which is what you are doing when you pay to see a concert live).

but with a Big Mac I actually receive a product .. with music I don't .. the same music I can listen to for free on the radio ? I now have to pay for ? why ?

back in the day everybody would just record their favorite songs from the radio and that way you could play them again when they wanted to ..

with buying music , you basically buy the right to listen to it when you want, you are not paying for the music itself but for the option to listen to it when it pleases you , ..

Originally Posted by kane

If you make a record that has a lasting impact and people are still buying it 10, 20, 30 years after you made it why shouldn't you get paid for it?

well, the question is , why should you ? as you pointed out yourself artists can make more then enough money from live concerst and merchandise ..

and I think it is better for them to just focus on that .. if you really like a certain artist and he is in town to give a concert you just might want to go and buy some tickets and go watch him live

if you did not get the oppurtunity to listen to his music in the first place you would not have gone .. concert revenue is at an all time high ?? why is that do you think ? maybe because more people listen to music now that it is free ?

free music is here now , and it is here to stay .. look at spotify , grooveshark ..

Originally Posted by kane

Answer me this: If a chef comes up with a bunch of great recipes and builds a kick ass menu around it and then opens up a restaurant using those recipes then they hire managers to run the place and they just step back and let it all work should they only get paid for the first batch of customers through the door? .

is this Chef making his food only once ? you contradict yourself .. you make the argument that a Big Mac can not be sold more than once because once somebody eats it is gone and you have to make a new one if you want to sell more

so how about this chef then ?

the rest of his customers will not be getting any food ? or what ? aslong as he is making NEW food he should get paid .. artists are not making anything new at all

some of them make one Big Mac and then expect to get paid forever ,

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

of course nothing stops you from selling your stuff if it also available for download for free on the torrents

open source companies like red hat do it all the time.

your trying to defend government granted monopoly control

if a restaurant in your example was the only place you could get chicken i would object to that too.

I'm not going to debate you about monopolies, torrents or any of that stuff.

I was simply pointing out to him why musicians get paid over and over again for work done once. It is the same thing as a guy who creates recipes for a restaurant and sells them over and over again or a guy who creates a formula for a drug for a pharm company and he gets a piece of the action every time it is sold.

Every job out there isn't this way, but part of creating art, especially art that can be duplicated easily and distributed over and over again is that you can get paid for it over and over again.