Copyright with respect to Music and Academia

[Adios]

One word. Promotion.

A very expensive procedure.

[Sir Fronkensteen, The Hawk]

One word. Promotion.

A very expensive procedure.

This.

Spend money to make money...

I revoke my previous rant.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

well kinda what I'm saying that self-promotion via the web is effective and (basically) free, Dresden Dolls are the best example of this I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are, and will be more.

x

edd

[Sir Fronkensteen, The Hawk]

Fred

[Kai]

Re-reading I can see how the entertainment point could have come across as a bit "boohoo I can't afford the cool shit I want", but my main gripe is that it seems that instead of responding to changing markets and different demands from consumers, the record industry has tried to create the demand that they want.  I'm not sure if that makes sense, uh, I'll try with a ham handed example:

Ok, imagine CD's have just been invented, and everyone wants cd's because they are cheaper, and they can be transported and shared easier, the quality is better, all sorts of reasons.  Then, instead of jumping on the bandwagon, and finding a way to make putting music onto CD's and selling it that way, the record industry uses its monetary influence (I did warn it was ham handed no?), to try and make putting music onto CD's illegal, so it doesn't have to restructure its current market based on vinyl and tape.

It seems to me that (and this really is just me making shit up) any new technology can be both detract and improve a certain market or product or whatever, but it is always going to detrimental if its resisted.  I think someone (somewhere), needs to grab internet filesharing by the balls and say LETS FUCKING TURN THIS IN OUR FAVOUR.  I don't know how, it's certainly harder than other technological changes that entertainment industries have faced, but I also think it is possible.


x

edd

I still think it's a sob story. Take my man Andrew York. Successful classical guitarist, excellent modern compositions. Has his own website, sells not only cds but mp3s AND sheet music AND various other items. When a new recording set comes out, I usually buy the mp3s because they're cheaper and less work. But interestingly, I would rather buy the cds as they come with notes about compositions that I wouldn't get with the tracks alone. But I still BUY the music.

Again, it's entertainment. There is lots of entertainment out there. You don't have to purchase anything to be entertained (I'd hope), but if you are going to use someone else's creation for entertainment and they're selling it rather than giving it away, then buy it. Otherwise, boo hoo hoo. It's not like it's a necessity.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

I do buy music, when I don't buy I listen to it through "legitimate" means (spotify etc.), and when I want something which is actually not available to buy (live recordings etc.), I download it.

This is not about whether or not I can afford to buy music, it is about a stagnant industry, which is to say, instaed of being innovative in dealing with the "problem" of file sharing, record companies sit around whining about it, or spending thousands of pounds on copy protection that ultimately doesn't work.

I'm saying turn "problem" into "opportunity".  That's all.

x

edd


also, FRED?

[Sir Fronkensteen, The Hawk]

Saw his Album in Hot Topic.   

[Adios]

well kinda what I'm saying that self-promotion via the web is effective and (basically) free, Dresden Dolls are the best example of this I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are, and will be more.

x

edd

Many artists may be able to make great music and fail at promoting it. It's a part of doing business. Promoters have the connections needed to get your stuff out there.

I am learning a lot going through the process of getting published.

[Kai]

I do buy music, when I don't buy I listen to it through "legitimate" means (spotify etc.), and when I want something which is actually not available to buy (live recordings etc.), I download it.

This is not about whether or not I can afford to buy music, it is about a stagnant industry, which is to say, instaed of being innovative in dealing with the "problem" of file sharing, record companies sit around whining about it, or spending thousands of pounds on copy protection that ultimately doesn't work.

I'm saying turn "problem" into "opportunity".  That's all.

x

edd

Or just listen to what you want to listen to. It eliminates the bitching, and increases the enjoyment.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think you're missing his point, and I think he's absolutely correct. The big 5 have COMPLETELY missed the boat as far as turning new technology into something they can use and profit from rather than taking a "HEY YOU KIDS GET YOUR FILE-SHARING OFFA MY LAWN!" approach. Now, I'll freely admit to illegally downloading an entire metric fuckton of music. When I really like a band, I make it a point to go to their shows and/or buy some merch direct from their booth or website, but that's not the point. The point is, if the record companies set up a site similar to Limewire (I don't use Limewire, but you know what I mean) and charged either for a block of downloads or a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, I'd be willing to pay that fee. The artists themselves make FAR more money off of touring and selling merchandise than off of album sales, so it would be in their best interest to sacrifice some of their album cut or per-song cut in order to gain wider exposure (and the reality is that when you buy a $15 CD, the band makes less than a dollar of that) and the record companies would still have a revenue stream.

Now, you could also make the argument that traditional record companies are completely obsolete, and that a model incorporating separate recording/producing and promotion companies would make much more sense, with it being up to the artists to pick and choose which of either they want to work with.

[Kai]

I think you're missing his point, and I think he's absolutely correct. The big 5 have COMPLETELY missed the boat as far as turning new technology into something they can use and profit from rather than taking a "HEY YOU KIDS GET YOUR FILE-SHARING OFFA MY LAWN!" approach. Now, I'll freely admit to illegally downloading an entire metric fuckton of music. When I really like a band, I make it a point to go to their shows and/or buy some merch direct from their booth or website, but that's not the point. The point is, if the record companies set up a site similar to Limewire (I don't use Limewire, but you know what I mean) and charged either for a block of downloads or a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, I'd be willing to pay that fee. The artists themselves make FAR more money off of touring and selling merchandise than off of album sales, so it would be in their best interest to sacrifice some of their album cut or per-song cut in order to gain wider exposure (and the reality is that when you buy a $15 CD, the band makes less than a dollar of that) and the record companies would still have a revenue stream.

Now, you could also make the argument that traditional record companies are completely obsolete, and that a model incorporating separate recording/producing and promotion companies would make much more sense, with it being up to the artists to pick and choose which of either they want to work with.

I'd take the second.

[Cain]

All journals which are open access to at least some extent are cataloged on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Theres a good list there, regardless of your discipline.

And there goes what remained of my free time.  One of the advantages of leaving Uni was that I wasn't spending all my spare time endlessly browsing online journals...

[Placid Dingo]

I think you're missing his point, and I think he's absolutely correct. The big 5 have COMPLETELY missed the boat as far as turning new technology into something they can use and profit from rather than taking a "HEY YOU KIDS GET YOUR FILE-SHARING OFFA MY LAWN!" approach. Now, I'll freely admit to illegally downloading an entire metric fuckton of music. When I really like a band, I make it a point to go to their shows and/or buy some merch direct from their booth or website, but that's not the point. The point is, if the record companies set up a site similar to Limewire (I don't use Limewire, but you know what I mean) and charged either for a block of downloads or a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, I'd be willing to pay that fee. The artists themselves make FAR more money off of touring and selling merchandise than off of album sales, so it would be in their best interest to sacrifice some of their album cut or per-song cut in order to gain wider exposure (and the reality is that when you buy a $15 CD, the band makes less than a dollar of that) and the record companies would still have a revenue stream.

Now, you could also make the argument that traditional record companies are completely obsolete, and that a model incorporating separate recording/producing and promotion companies would make much more sense, with it being up to the artists to pick and choose which of either they want to work with.

This reminds me of 000s 'Video stores should be allowed films on DVD.

But the video stores don't fight for it and the companies don't allow it. Nobody's spotting the big picture.

As far as the companies go there's an epic failure of vision and a bloody minded buisiness as usual approach. Which is OK, if you're indifferent about the existence of your industry.

[Cain]

CHANGING MY BUSINESS MODEL IS RISKY THOUGH!  WHY NOT JUST USE LOBBYISTS TO TRY AND STAND ATHWART TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESS, YELLING "STOP"?
\

[Kai]

All journals which are open access to at least some extent are cataloged on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Theres a good list there, regardless of your discipline.

And there goes what remained of my free time.  One of the advantages of leaving Uni was that I wasn't spending all my spare time endlessly browsing online journals...

My bad.