Suspect in Memphis officer's death says he's no coward.
Except, he is a coward, and didn’t like being so named. They are cowards, all those of his like.
We glamorize thieves, murders, criminals of every ilk, calling them thugs, gangsters and other names that are associated with urban bravado. We glamorize them in movies. Instead, call a spade a spade. Call them in the news media, TV, Web, newspapers what they are: baby killers, low class thieves, cowards all, small timers of low IQ lacking any skills by which they might make an honest living.
And what other names can be applied that will take all the glamor out of their self-perceptions? Puny sissies, weaklings, sucklings, babies, baby-men, ticks that suck on the lifeblood of society. Perhaps we need new emasculating names to call these lowest of the low, these blights upon society, these scavengers, human eaters of carrion, maggots. What names can we call them to discourage them from wanting to be so designated by society?
To accommodate these penurious levies, something has to give. Innovative play features will no longer be affordable to incorporate into toys bearing these sky high royalties. Product quality may have to suffer as some have suggested at a recent UK industry gathering.
Toys may become less durable, less magical, less delightful, less inspirational, and of less value to child and parent as a result. All parties will suffer if the level of toy quality and innovation is reduced. Licensors, retailers, Toy makers, parents and children, to say nothing of special interests like ourselves, toy inventors who make our living providing innovation and inspiration to toys.
How far is UP for entertainment royalties, and how far is DOWN for toy quality, innovation and value???
Royalty rates charged by Disney for use of its entertainment properties such as Star Wars, Marvel Superheroes, and etc. have risen again. Now it’s at 23% of the wholesale price of goods charged to the retailer who stocks their shelves with said goods.
How much higher can these royalties go? Surely we have not seen the last increases. The result of these exorbitant royalty rates is widespread and far reaching. Has anyone calculated what the average American family will be paying Disney in royalties this year? It might be enlightening to the general public to know that. It amounts to a tax Disney, and others, levy on families with children who love their properties.
As inventor royalties are reduced further to accommodate higher Disney royalties, the business model becomes no longer viable. Inventors, once the lifeblood of the toy and game industry, are moving to other industries, downsizing or closing their doors. Yee Gads!!!
But who cares?
However, if toys are important to children, as is well documented, and a crucial formative influence on us all as adults, as I maintain (though less well documented), then the unintended consequences of all this could be significant, and negative. Like Global Warming, but the opposite, and in toys. This will be the 'Global Cooling' of the brain stimulation that good and great toys provide. A dumbing down of the 'toy curriculum' that is a child's important developmental resources, and avenues.
As toys go, so goes the world.
Up, as in entertainment royalty rated, is not UP. And DOWN, as in the reduced level of innovation and richness of play patterns, is certainly not UP! Mr. Disney, wherever you are, "Tear Down this Wall" that threatens us all to become the poorer.
As independent inventors, we are dependent on royalties paid for use of our inventions and other developments. As royalties rise for entertainment properties, we are seeing our royalty rated, revenues and incomes decline. Where once a 5% royalty was near universal, and 3% when used with one of these expensive character properties, now the royalties we are being offered are being pushed down to compensate.
At 5% the independent inventor business model was very viable and even lucrative at times. Even reduced to 3% when used in conjunction with a 3rd party entertainment property it could work as the sales would be greater when used with the property than if used without, and therefore the revenues would be greater even at a reduced royalty rate. Or so the story goes.
At what point do we say 'NO'? Who will stand up and say this royalty rate licensors are demanding is unfair, unreasonable, counterproductive, and altogether untenable? Who will put their foot down, and when? How much further must royalty rates rise before one of our numbers will say "NO!!!!!" ????
As royalty rates charged to toy companies, and by extension charged to retailers and consumers alike continue to rise, the nature of toy products has, and will continue to change of neccessity. These royalties are approaching 25% of the wholesale price of the toy. How much do consumers pay Disney and other such property owners each year in a 'royalty tax"?