Principia Discordia

http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/11/30/theHollywoodWritersStrike.html

I haven't heard it said in the tech blogosphere that the Hollywood writer's strike cuts right to heart of the philosophy of the entertainment industry and what goes on on the Internet. But it does. It's a classic faceoff, and in this case, the execs, the nemesis of the Internet, seem to be taking the side of the Internet. They can't promise the writers a share of the money they make on the Internet because they don't see how they're going to make money on the Internet. How can you share something that doesn't exist??

When we talk with people from the entertainment industry they explain how they can't just release stuff on the Internet, because they have agreements with the rights holders that assume the realities of the old more restrictive distribution system. Those are the writers.

Now you can see how real the concerns are, when there are real people who express them, and how the execs are in the middle. 

I'm a net native (even though I've heard young people question whether anyone my age can be) and while I appreciate the human concerns, there is no meaningful way to be sympathetic. I'm not going on strike, even though I am a writer. I don't ask to be paid for my writing. I haven't been paid for writing software in a very long time, but I keep doing it. Yet I look in my bank account, and somehow the balance keeps going up. In the end, that's all that matters. 

I don't hold on to a principle that I must be paid for what I do. I look at money as separate from my living. I live through my work. Some of it pays, and it's unfortunately unpredictable what that is. Welcome to the net, welcome to the 21st century.

I heard a report on Nightline how the writers of The Simpsons are producing YouTube videos, and they're funny. Of course they are -- the people who write that show couldn't possibly write something that wasn't. They should keep doing them, I suspect they will.

Never mind how you get from point A to point B, we're going there. Creative work won't be directly paid for in the future. And we're already in that future. Read my essays from the 90s to see how angry this made me. Now the anger has subsided, as a software writer, and it will subside for the Hollywood writers too. This may be the moment when the system breaks. It looks more and more like that.
-------------------------

The question of course is what happens when the system breaks?  If creative enterprises can no longer be made to pay (at least not all the time), what happens instead?

Will creativity become the domain of the rich (rather like essayists of past centuries).  Will artists seek out patrons?  Or will the emphasis shift towards using creative tools merely to market other products?

Personally, I see the third as being most likely.  Content creation has become more and more the packaging, instead of the product.  But that brings with it a whole slew of questions about what happens when art becomes subject to and slavishly beholden to market forces.

Comments?

I like the idea of creativity being free, but I also like the possibility that I can get paid for what I'm good at and like to do, rather than separate my life into time spent being creative, and time spent trying to survive.



However, I'm currently living the latter life, so...

Until the above blog entry, I have read little to nothing about the writer's strike. (I watch very little TV, and since the strike started, I haven't even really been watching Jon and Steven.)

My (safe) bet is that, like most things this century, the forces of change and novelty are going to make everything more complex. I think that art will embody its media. Youtube and youtube-like websites will still exist, and they will carry both professional and nonprofessional videos. TV will still go on, but I think we're going to see a mix of "the writer's get their way" (expanded contracts which include some sort of scalar internet-publishing bonus?) and "fuck the writers" (moar reality tv shows- which don't need writers).

One of the cool things about the net though is that when given the choice between a professional video and some video some kids made in their basement, people don't always choose the more expensive one. ANARCHY!

But the medium has always been the important part. It defines the form your art can take. You can't get your hour-long documentary popular on youtube, because popular youtube videos are less than two minutes long. I think we're going to see more websites which showcase different types of art. If you're an artist who works for a big rich company, your art is going to get the full treatment. If you're some kid with a video camera and a bluescreen, your art is going to have a home somewhere out there too. And the cool thing, again, is that TV no longer has a monopoly on passive-entertainment. In the information age, everyone gets a shot. But not every shot gets the same treatment.

I wouldn't be surprised to see creativity to continue down the path it always has. Creativity spills out of some humans, like Wango Tango juice at a San Francisco Discordian Meetup. Creative people create. Musicians note music, artists paint and draw, poets compose, writers write and the muses lead them all to do this whenever they can. The concept that these people reap continuing benefits for the reuse of their creativity appears only recently in our history. Creative people will create, even if there is no market for their creation (see half the art students from my graduating class as proof). If the muses inspire works that will not be appreciated, how much more simple it will be to inspire works that will be appreciated, but simply aren't marketable in a capitalistic society.

Production Companies, Studios, Producers etc existed only to play the part of the Patron... producing a radio show, television show, movie or album was expensive. The equipment was expensive, the technical expertise was expensive and distribution on any large scale was very expensive. Thus the Patrons aka Cash Cows were necessary. (Note: I must find application for 'Cache Chao' as a Discordian metaphor of some sort). Creative people are suddenly finding themselves in a similar situation as software writers found themselves in the 90's. Computers, software languages and software distribution was no longer an expensive and complex process. People could do what they like (creating) without the constraints of a Patron holding the reins. Over half of the Internet today, runs on software that was freely created by people without a Patron (Linux, Apache, BIND, Sendmail/QMail/Etc, wu-ftp, vsftp etc etc etc).

There was an interesting book at the turn of the century called "The Hacker Ethic". The author put forward a concept that we were seeing the rise of a new work ethic. The common work ethic, "the Protestant Work ethic" is, in his view, based on the concept of lowly man, doing right by God and putting in 40 hours of work for his daily bread. Liking your work has nothing to do with it... you work for money, you suffer the crappy job because you're a sinner and this is how you earn your keep (how vastly different that mindset from what our forefathers must have had). The author's view was that the "hacker ethic" was a philosophy based on working on what you like (no matter the recompense), their work is their play, their play is the production of a creative work. Even if they have day jobs in computer programming, their actual creativity shines in the "hobby" aspect of their art. Once the creative work finds a niche, an audience, a market of some sort... the creator is often brought along with the work.

PayPal and 'tipjars', have led to people that make their entire living from blogging (Michael Totten has traveled to the Middle East several times on nothing more than a tip jar and support from his blog readers)... writing directly to the public and getting paid directly by the public that supports their work. It can't be long before someone simply replaces the blog entries with weekly installments of sitcoms, dramas and animations developed with home equipment (that rivals the studio equipment of 15 years ago). Once people are directly paying the artists, studios, Producers etc will probably get relegated to whatever they can maintain on Cable and the big blockbuster movies (No one will be doing PJ quality "Lord of The Rings" in Flash... oh, what an idea!).

I find it interesting to compare this with Bob's theories described in the RICH economy. A Leisure class that doesn't deal with manual labor, but instead spends their free time creating or learning about new kinds of work etc. Of course, his model included government subsidies for everyone and robots, but the general idea of a large segment of the population that has the spare time necessary to be creative (and the necessary tools easily available) seems quite interesting to me.

I don't know what would happen if all of our news eventually came from Blogs (ick!) or if all of our television came from YouTube and our music from a bands MySpace page... but it may well break something.

Sounds like a good way for the execs to push for more control of the internet through their locally bought elected officials.  If the problem is that there is no money from internet broadcasts, the obvious solution is to make sure that revenue can be collected from the viewers.  This may entail blocking countries and IP's which harbor pirates  as well as more rigorous enforcement of copyrights.  In the current political environment of protectionism outweighing the forces of liberty, at least in the US, it seems that a greater emphasis on copyright protection would be more likely to come out of our leaders than letting go of age old profits.  If this does not come directly from the government, private industry may itself decide to put together another group like the RIAA to ensure the rights of the larger companies are protected.

So if you're creative and in with the big shots, you will be paid and your rights enforced while the rest of us toil for other rewards and hope to make the rent a different way...

  Then there will always be the copyright cats who will copyright your hard work and protect it under the skirts of the big media players

True.

I mostly worry that creativity may not be commerically viable unless it is "in tune" with the current pop culture, meaning only the producers of that really get any reward.  You can see it already, kinda, with the empahsis on formulaic pop, r'n'b and hiphop.  Backing most other acts, if they don't already sound like successful acts, is just too risky with the lower capital resources.  It could lead to a real cultural stagnation, if creativity is limited by market forces.

In addition, I've reached the aprt in Black Swan about how the Matthew effect, which applies to pop culture, as well.  The more people pay attention to something, the more it feeds itself.  It also seems like there's an upper limit of popular things/bands/artists/producers that the public can focus on at any one time.

Quote from: LMNO on December 28, 2007, 02:24:27 PM
In addition, I've reached the aprt in Black Swan about how the Matthew effect, which applies to pop culture, as well.  The more people pay attention to something, the more it feeds itself.  It also seems like there's an upper limit of popular things/bands/artists/producers that the public can focus on at any one time.

That seems like a Law of Fives in action.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 20, 2007, 03:35:57 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to see creativity to continue down the path it always has. Creativity spills out of some humans, like Wango Tango juice at a San Francisco Discordian Meetup. Creative people create. Musicians note music, artists paint and draw, poets compose, writers write and the muses lead them all to do this whenever they can. The concept that these people reap continuing benefits for the reuse of their creativity appears only recently in our history. Creative people will create, even if there is no market for their creation (see half the art students from my graduating class as proof). If the muses inspire works that will not be appreciated, how much more simple it will be to inspire works that will be appreciated, but simply aren't marketable in a capitalistic society.

Quote from: Cain on December 28, 2007, 01:59:31 PM
I mostly worry that creativity may not be commerically viable unless it is "in tune" with the current pop culture, meaning only the producers of that really get any reward.  You can see it already, kinda, with the empahsis on formulaic pop, r'n'b and hiphop.  Backing most other acts, if they don't already sound like successful acts, is just too risky with the lower capital resources.  It could lead to a real cultural stagnation, if creativity is limited by market forces.

I'm not sure that creativity can be limited by market forces directly, but indirectly the market could play a large role.  By limiting what is available for synthesis, otherwise known as inspirational material, the market narrows down the breadth of what can be produced, i.e., an artist who hears only one other artist in a lifetime will be hard pressed to come up with something completely original.  Most likely the format, instruments and styles will be some evolution of the original artist and be recognizeably similiar.  On the other hand, an artist who is exposed to many different styles has more to pick and choose from and can offer a wider range of creative synthesis. 

So, with this being added

Quote from: LMNO on December 28, 2007, 02:24:27 PM
In addition, I've reached the aprt in Black Swan about how the Matthew effect, which applies to pop culture, as well.  The more people pay attention to something, the more it feeds itself.  It also seems like there's an upper limit of popular things/bands/artists/producers that the public can focus on at any one time.

and the addition that with a limit of popular focus items a lot of smaller market will be lost/forgotten/unexposed, it seems that the idea pool will become smaller, thereby making creation less esoteric and more formula driven.  The result?  A bunch of crap that all looks/sounds relatively familiar and similiar.   Listen to the radio lately?  Its oldies vs theoneband and art is popularly represented by giant pictures of sports heroes and posterized images.  There is more and better out there, but you have to take it upon yourself to get outside of your ordinary influences as big media will keep sending the same crap down the line as long as it sells.

Good points.  And I know exactly what you mean by radio, in the UK almost every local radio station is owned by one of two large companies, who have exactly the same playlists.  You can flick through several stations and here the same song on all of them.  That's what worries me, that everything else will get shoved to the margins and UK radio style culture becomes the norm.

Of course, some would say it has already happened.

Suddenly, the "What are you listening to right now" thread becomes surprisingly relevant and useful.

Indeed.

Also, on a very similar train of thought is this, http://thepiratesdilemma.com/about-the-book

The Pirate's Dilemma tells the story of how youth culture drives innovation and is changing the way the world works. It offers understanding and insight for a time when piracy is just another business model, the remix is our most powerful marketing tool and anyone with a computer is capable of reaching more people than a multi-national corporation.

Do we fight pirates, or do we learn from them?

Ideas that started within punk, disco, hip-hop, rave, graffiti and gaming have been combined with new technologies and taken to new heights by the generations that grew up under their influence. With a cast of characters that includes such icons as The Ramones, Andy Warhol, Madonna, Russell Simmons, Pharrell and 50 Cent, The Pirate's Dilemma uncovers, for the first time, the trends that transformed underground scenes into burgeoning global industries and movements, ultimately changing life as we know it, unraveling some of our most basic assumptions about business, society and our collective future.

As a result people, companies and organizations are now struggling with a new dilemma in increasing numbers. As piracy continues to change the way we all use information, how should we respond? Do we fight pirates, or do we learn from them? Should piracy be treated as a problem, or a solution? To compete or not to compete - that is the question – that is the Pirate's Dilemma, perhaps one of the most important economic and cultural conundrums of the 21st Century.

Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2008, 06:13:39 PM

As a result people, companies and organizations are now struggling with a new dilemma in increasing numbers. As piracy continues to change the way we all use information, how should we respond? Do we fight pirates, or do we learn from them? Should piracy be treated as a problem, or a solution? To compete or not to compete - that is the question – that is the Pirate’s Dilemma, perhaps one of the most important economic and cultural conundrums of the 21st Century.

However it goes, the pirates are going to have to find a way to feed themselves without drawing too much attention.  The ways that monetary transactions can be tracked, especially net related transactions, would seem to make piracy a diminishing avenue to wealth rather than an expansive enterprise. 

On the other hand, failing economies will leave little wealth to be used for luxuries like entertainment, taking the money out of entertainment production while leaving the huddled unemployed masses with little to do aside from hunt for food and find new and innovative ways to entertain themselves, and everything is open-source if you have nothing to lose.  Could lead to a wild expansion of great starving artists and dead poets.

Anonymous internet banking backed by financial institutions with their own currency may be a future step in the right direction.  Currencies can exist purely electronically, after all, it's just a matter of finding a place that will allow the "anonymous" part to happen.

Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2008, 08:52:30 PM
Anonymous internet banking backed by financial institutions with their own currency may be a future step in the right direction.  Currencies can exist purely electronically, after all, it's just a matter of finding a place that will allow the "anonymous" part to happen.

assassination politics (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm) ?

Hah, yes.  Something along those lines was what I was thinking.

The problem becomes, what is the incentive to buy instead of steal?

I suppose the people controlling the anonymous banking could poison the potential free downloads there are by spreading viruses, trojans and fake goods via torrent sites etc, meanwhile quietly promoting their own as having none of those problems because they are committed to quality service.

Can there be anonymous anything with the current "camera on every corner" agendas?

The Rep's were against this pre-911, but in the post-911 US there is no real voice against the insertion of cameras everywhere.  The people have chosen security over liberty...

Happened over here as well, from about 1997 in.  I suppose the answer we are moving towards is a data haven, a la The Cyptonomicon.  Many governments have found benefits in supporting groups who officially act outside of the law.  The most obvious example is the Russian Business Network, who were behind the bot attacks on Chechen and Estonian websites (as well as hosting practically every sort of criminal enterprise you care to name), but even in the USA you had the Iran-Contra crew whose illegal actions benefitted government policy, although in a far more low-tech way.

The problem is, such countries are going to want to use your network for their own ends, and have the legal/military means to make you comply.  The obvious solution is then a neutral government.  But if a government is neutral, it probably will not look the other way while its laws are subverted.  In which case you're hoping for an extremely enlightened government somewhere, or a place where the state has virtually no control.

Quote from: Cain on December 20, 2007, 12:30:19 PM
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/11/30/theHollywoodWritersStrike.html

I don't ask to be paid for my writing. I haven't been paid for writing software in a very long time, but I keep doing it. Yet I look in my bank account, and somehow the balance keeps going up. In the end, that's all that matters. 

If only it always worked that way...

Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2007, 02:39:19 PM
I like the idea of creativity being free, but I also like the possibility that I can get paid for what I'm good at and like to do, rather than separate my life into time spent being creative, and time spent trying to survive.

qft

Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2007, 02:39:19 PM
but I also like the possibility that I can get paid for what I'm good at and like to do,

And i would like getting a golden toilet seat.
wanting something doesn't give you the right to get it, its an argument i hear everytime i try to explain that its silly to pay for something they wouldn't want to buy back(i.e. every form of information, copyrighted stuff, inventions logo's/symbols, ideas, stories etc) Why would you pay for using a idea someone else had first? are you supposed to remove the memory if you can't pay? why not use a technique you know jsut because you haven't paid the one who came up with it?

ehmmm damn got into a bit of a rant there, besides most of y'all probably already think the same.


edit:
damn just read a part of this assasination politics, sounds like a good idea but how feasible is it?
planning to read the rest when i have more time.

Quote from: Regret on March 29, 2008, 03:29:36 PM

Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2007, 02:39:19 PM
but I also like the possibility that I can get paid for what I'm good at and like to do,

And i would like getting a golden toilet seat.
wanting something doesn't give you the right to get it, its an argument i hear everytime i try to explain that its silly to pay for something they wouldn't want to buy back(i.e. every form of information, copyrighted stuff, inventions logo's/symbols, ideas, stories etc) Why would you pay for using a idea someone else had first? are you supposed to remove the memory if you can't pay? why not use a technique you know jsut because you haven't paid the one who came up with it?

Um I think that his point was that as the creator of something he doesn't feel bad about selling it. Maybe not. It's certainly how I feel about my work though... creativity is free for the creative.

I totally agree that creativity is free, doesn't mean other people's art is free, or should be, though. If we want creative people to have time to be creative, they got to get paid, son.

If creativity should be free, then we should all be unthinking zombies in the work place. Don't even be creative enough to lift a hand. What one person sees as being dull, may be enjoyable to another, for example some people actually enjoy filing, but not everyone enjoys being creative. But no one enjoys watching anyone file.

And simply because being creative is so enjoyable to a media whore nation, doen't mean it should be a charity. you don't simpply give people food because they are hungry, or because it is right, but because you want to and can do it without starving yourself in the process. so whatever anyone decides, i will have to stare attentively, not giving two shits or allowing it to happen, because i wouldn't stop it if i could.

I will give a bum a dime if he can make me laugh. Nothing against bums, but nothing for them if they don't prove to me they are doing what they want with their lives. I love bums who love themselves.

Quote from: Nigel on March 29, 2008, 05:22:02 PM
I totally agree that creativity is free, doesn't mean other people's art is free, or should be, though. If we want creative people to have time to be creative, they got to get paid, son.

Cool. Write me a cheque?

Quote from: Nigel on March 29, 2008, 05:22:02 PM
creativity is free for the creative.

and if you don't think you are creative, its because you aren't looking at things right, or you've been suppressed and beaten into thinking you lack it.

Also, never appologize for inspiration. Ever.

Time = Money

You take time to do something and somebody wants it - bill them.

Quote from: B_M_W on March 30, 2008, 05:33:43 AM
Also, never appologize for inspiration. Ever.

what do you mean?

never apologize for lack of inspiration?

cause a few years back i was doing this commissioned work for some 13-14 cartoons, one for every study/faculty of the exact sciences on my university, it was deadline day because the next day i was going on holidays to Prague ..
after the 10th cartoon or so i was seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel when it came to inspiration for any sort of funny and i had to call in all the help-troops, which meant bugging any sort of person that was still online at that time of night for ideas and using obscene brainstorming techniques such as Tarot cards (no drugs, at 5am weed and alcohol just makes me sleepy and coffee kills my ability to draw accurately).

ok, so i managed to do it, but at the end it was mostly because of some hardcore sense of duty (oh, and 250 euros + exposure) than any kind of left over inspiration :)

forced funny is always a good kind of funny

that oneliner should go into the lollercaust. i think RWHN knows what i'm talking about here.

Quote from: Xooxe on March 30, 2008, 04:59:03 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 29, 2008, 05:22:02 PM
I totally agree that creativity is free, doesn't mean other people's art is free, or should be, though. If we want creative people to have time to be creative, they got to get paid, son.

Cool. Write me a cheque?

Get your ass out there and sell it like the other paid artists do.

I have a feeling that as we progress into the future, creative art careers will become something more and more people do.  Why?  Because robotics will replace more and more of our more menial jobs eventually.  Robotics and the arts will be the two major careers, along with healthcare, permaculture, and the peace corps.  Someday we'll master a more paradisical world, provided we don't blow the thing up.

Quote from: Nigel on March 29, 2008, 05:22:02 PM
Um I think that his point was that as the creator of something he doesn't feel bad about selling it. Maybe not. It's certainly how I feel about my work though... creativity is free for the creative.

Oh i might have read a bit too much in it then, i thought he expected to get paid for it. If he manages to trick people in giving him money more power to him but creating a system where you have to pay to use an idea just because somebody else had it first is silly.

Quote from: Regret on March 30, 2008, 10:01:38 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 29, 2008, 05:22:02 PM
Um I think that his point was that as the creator of something he doesn't feel bad about selling it. Maybe not. It's certainly how I feel about my work though... creativity is free for the creative.

Oh i might have read a bit too much in it then, i thought he expected to get paid for it. If he manages to trick people in giving him money more power to him but creating a system where you have to pay to use an idea just because somebody else had it first is silly.

Huh, I don't know, I believe in copyright and not plagiarizing and stuff.

ARTISTS AND CREATORS SHOULD LEARN TO LIVE ON AIR, OR PAINT EDIBLE WORKS OF ART! 

Because, of course, there is no way with the current economic system that these people are not going to get screwed over if they have no legal recourse to ownership of their ideas and creations, and relying on the charity of speculators, companies and entrepeneurs is charmingly naive, to say the least.

Of course, if you can come up with an economic system where works can be distributed freely, yet people aren't going homeless and hungry, then I'm all ears.  Benaclypse gave one, but I seeing very few other suggestions.

Quote from: Cain on March 30, 2008, 11:36:58 PM
ARTISTS AND CREATORS SHOULD LEARN TO LIVE ON AIR, OR PAINT EDIBLE WORKS OF ART! 

http://www.breatharian.com/ :lulz:

I always wonder about those guys.

"
Breatharian Institute Of America
"EMPOWERED ASCENSION"

INITIATION WORKSHOPS

BY

WILEY BROOKS, BREATHARIAN AND FOUNDER OF
The Breatharian Institute of America

To do the workshops you must travel to southern Utah for the first 5 days

The workshop includes a visit to Earth Prime in the 5th Dimension

in your physical body if you are ready.

You will also learn how to become a permanent resident and/or retire in this beautiful world.

The process starts at an initial costs as low as $10,000,000.00 USD

This special offer will last for only 2 months

No Refunds

Sept 1, 2007 the cost will be $15,000,000 USD

November 1, 2007 the cost will be 20,000,000.00 USD

January 1, 2008 the cost will be 25,000,000.00 USD

(I will consider a payment plan)"

Quote from: Cain on March 30, 2008, 11:36:58 PM
ARTISTS AND CREATORS SHOULD LEARN TO LIVE ON AIR, OR PAINT EDIBLE WORKS OF ART! 

Because, of course, there is no way with the current economic system that these people are not going to get screwed over if they have no legal recourse to ownership of their ideas and creations, and relying on the charity of speculators, companies and entrepeneurs is charmingly naive, to say the least.

Of course, if you can come up with an economic system where works can be distributed freely, yet people aren't going homeless and hungry, then I'm all ears.  Benaclypse gave one, but I seeing very few other suggestions.

well its something i'll put off until after i've created the superultimate anarchist utopia, duh!

oh and the first step in improving the world Regret-style is to solve the overpopulation problem, cuz with that lots of problems would just dissapear, or at least be diluted.


Regret,
Good at bitching, not so good at actually solving stuff.

Quote from: Regret on March 31, 2008, 12:22:47 AM

Quote from: Cain on March 30, 2008, 11:36:58 PM
ARTISTS AND CREATORS SHOULD LEARN TO LIVE ON AIR, OR PAINT EDIBLE WORKS OF ART! 

Because, of course, there is no way with the current economic system that these people are not going to get screwed over if they have no legal recourse to ownership of their ideas and creations, and relying on the charity of speculators, companies and entrepeneurs is charmingly naive, to say the least.

Of course, if you can come up with an economic system where works can be distributed freely, yet people aren't going homeless and hungry, then I'm all ears.  Benaclypse gave one, but I seeing very few other suggestions.

well its something i'll put off until after i've created the superultimate anarchist utopia, duh!

oh and the first step in improving the world Regret-style is to solve the overpopulation problem, cuz with that lots of problems would just dissapear, or at least be diluted.


Regret,
Good at bitching, not so good at actually solving stuff.

I don't think overpopulation is a problem as much as it is a catalyst for change. Lights a fire under our asses, so to speak.

Quote from: triple zero on March 30, 2008, 05:46:41 PM

Quote from: B_M_W on March 30, 2008, 05:33:43 AM
Also, never appologize for inspiration. Ever.

what do you mean?

never apologize for lack of inspiration?

cause a few years back i was doing this commissioned work for some 13-14 cartoons, one for every study/faculty of the exact sciences on my university, it was deadline day because the next day i was going on holidays to Prague ..
after the 10th cartoon or so i was seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel when it came to inspiration for any sort of funny and i had to call in all the help-troops, which meant bugging any sort of person that was still online at that time of night for ideas and using obscene brainstorming techniques such as Tarot cards (no drugs, at 5am weed and alcohol just makes me sleepy and coffee kills my ability to draw accurately).

ok, so i managed to do it, but at the end it was mostly because of some hardcore sense of duty (oh, and 250 euros + exposure) than any kind of left over inspiration :)

forced funny is always a good kind of funny

that oneliner should go into the lollercaust. i think RWHN knows what i'm talking about here.

Actually, we meant never appologize for being inspired. take that donkey by the ears and /ride it/

I pretty much see creativity as payment since it's usually so rewarding. Monetary payment is just a bonus, depending on whether people actually like what you're doing.

Quote from: Regret on March 31, 2008, 12:22:47 AMwell its something i'll put off until after i've created the superultimate anarchist utopia, duh!

oh and the first step in improving the world Regret-style is to solve the overpopulation problem, cuz with that lots of problems would just dissapear, or at least be diluted.

but what about the dolphins?

if the dolphins are a problem to you then i'm willing to dilute them too, know any good dolphin solvents?

tuna?

There have been a few suggestions in economics which could be of use.

The Tobin Tax, along with a National Dividend or Minimum Guaranteed Income economic system could make many lower paying but necessary jobs (including the arts) more accessible for people.  Equally, there was a Creative Token system which seemed a little complex and difficult to implement, but may have some promise.

But without these being put in place, telling people to suck it up wont work.  Capitalism isn't just a mode of production, its a theory about ownership as well, and denying people ownership in the current environment is as good as stealing from them.

Quote from: Regret on March 29, 2008, 03:29:36 PM

Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2007, 02:39:19 PM
but I also like the possibility that I can get paid for what I'm good at and like to do,

And i would like getting a golden toilet seat.
wanting something doesn't give you the right to get it, its an argument i hear everytime i try to explain that its silly to pay for something they wouldn't want to buy back(i.e. every form of information, copyrighted stuff, inventions logo's/symbols, ideas, stories etc) Why would you pay for using a idea someone else had first? are you supposed to remove the memory if you can't pay? why not use a technique you know jsut because you haven't paid the one who came up with it?

Well, if you had read the rest of it...

QuoteI like the idea of creativity being free, but I also like the possibility that I can get paid for what I'm good at and like to do, rather than separate my life into time spent being creative, and time spent trying to survive.

Currently, I spend 7.5 hours a day at a desk, in order to survive, and have some money left over to buy recording equipment and musical instruments.

When you add up the rest of my (admittedly self-imposed) obligations to my wife and my home, that gives me only a couple of hours a day to write, record, and mix my music.

I am planning on flipping this around someday/somehow, and be able to spend 7.5 hours a day writing/recording/mixing, while being able to survive, plus have some money left over.

If we do things your way, this will never be possible.

Quote from: Cain on March 31, 2008, 01:51:24 PM
There have been a few suggestions in economics which could be of use.

The Tobin Tax, along with a National Dividend or Minimum Guaranteed Income economic system could make many lower paying but necessary jobs (including the arts) more accessible for people.  Equally, there was a Creative Token system which seemed a little complex and difficult to implement, but may have some promise.

But without these being put in place, telling people to suck it up wont work.  Capitalism isn't just a mode of production, its a theory about ownership as well, and denying people ownership in the current environment is as good as stealing from them.

Heh, and some Discordians return to this train of thought ;-)

http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/texts/raw-RICH.html (http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/texts/raw-RICH.html)

I've been intrigued by the theories on Guaranteed Annual Income, National Dividend, etc. But I'm not at all sure it would be achievable with the mindset of our current society. Though I found the illustration of such a society in "Schrodinger's Cat" to be an optimistic and compelling picture.

I remember getting into a very heated argument regarding the RICH economy theory.  She was definately in the "Protestant Work Ethic" school.  She couldn't get past the fact that some people with no "job" might just sit around getting stoned all day.

Quote from: Xooxe on March 31, 2008, 07:43:58 AM
I pretty much see creativity as payment since it's usually so rewarding. Monetary payment is just a bonus, depending on whether people actually like what you're doing.

Creativity is fun and I would do creative things without payment even if I had to hold down a full-time non-creative job, but if I wasn't getting paid for my creativity and instead had to spend 8-10 hours a day working a full-time non-creative job, I wouldn't be able to make as much creative stuff, nor would it be nearly as good because I wouldn't have the time to put into advancing my skills.

People who pay for creativity also get rewarded, because by paying the creative people they make it possible for them to make more and better creative stuff.

Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 05:31:09 PM
I remember getting into a very heated argument regarding the RICH economy theory.  She was definately in the "Protestant Work Ethic" school.  She couldn't get past the fact that some people with no "job" might just sit around getting stoned all day.

heh i see that too with some people, hey guess what? its okay for some people to be lazy bastards!(<< this is the real reason i like this idea ofcourse, i wanna be paid for my laziness! so the idea must be stupid right? right?)
Damn that RAW dude! he totally stole MY idea! gurrrr

oh and for the record i don't mind creative ppl getting paid, I do mind being told not to use a skill I have just because somebody said its theirs. I want an re-evaluation of the definitions of property, if only because 'property is 9/10ths of the law' and i want teh laws to die!

Regret,
naive and angry anarchist.

Hitting "play" on your ipod is a skill?

Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 05:31:09 PM
I remember getting into a very heated argument regarding the RICH economy theory.  She was definately in the "Protestant Work Ethic" school.  She couldn't get past the fact that some people with no "job" might just sit around getting stoned all day.

It's interesting to note that the so-called Millenium Generation (people graduating high school around 2000) appear to have substantially less connection with the Protestant Work Ethic than previous generations. Our HR department has run into serious challenges in trying to hire talent from this particular group... as they seem willing to forgo a high paying/high-demand job, for a low-paying/ low-demand job. Any hint that they would be expected to work more than 40 hours a week, or have any less than 14 days of vacation as a start, sends them right back to flipping burgers and dropping fries.

Of course, this appears to be the same generation that has reportedly proven incompetent  at managing a budget or understanding how credit works. In short, it appears that they may be a generation that could (in the future) move to something closer to the RICH economy (or similar concept) and further away from the Protestant Work Ethic (perhaps moving more closely to the Hacker Work Ethic as described by Pekka Himanen ). Or they could all end up as burger flipping Chanfags.

Quote from: Regret on March 31, 2008, 09:15:16 PMi want teh laws to die!

naive and angry anarchist.

:roll:

Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 09:17:05 PM
Hitting "play" on your ipod is a skill?

yes but not a very impressive one :P
seriously i was talking about recording/downloading music you haven't paid for, or the eedjots that are copyrighting genes o_0
You want to make money as an artist? perform. incidently removing all those silly copyright laws would make it impossible for big corporations to take advantage of musicians, and i asume everything will work out alright for the real artists.(weak point alert! use this to say i'm stupid if you are so inclined.)
Without the money from the music corporations no commercials will be possible thus making hyped horrors like britney spears impossible.(this is my real reason for wanting this TBH)

Quote from: Regret on March 31, 2008, 10:05:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 09:17:05 PM
Hitting "play" on your ipod is a skill?

yes but not a very impressive one :P
seriously i was talking about recording/downloading music you haven't paid for, or the eedjots that are copyrighting genes o_0
You want to make money as an artist? perform. incidently removing all those silly copyright laws would make it impossible for big corporations to take advantage of musicians, and i asume everything will work out alright for the real artists.(weak point alert! use this to say i'm stupid if you are so inclined.)
Without the money from the music corporations no commercials will be possible thus making hyped horrors like britney spears impossible.(this is my real reason for wanting this TBH)

Copyright is more than just making money.  It's protecting an investment.  An investment of energy and creativity.  It took me two days to write and record that stupid song I uploaded yesterday.  Now, I have no intentions of ever becoming a professional recording artist, I don't have the committment or talent to make it.  However, for the sake of argument, let's say I am.  I can't tell you how pissed I'd be if after spending two days putting effort into that song, that not only are some schmucks downloading it illegally, prohibiting me from making some money, but some royal tard recorded the song, called it their own, and then made money off of MY creativity.  Intellectual property should be allowed the same protections as physical property. 

(disclaimer: i'm not trying to argue that "violating Intellectual Property" is okay, here)

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2008, 02:19:07 PMIntellectual property should be allowed the same protections as physical property.

sorry but this is impossible. i tried to point it out in similar copyright discussions we've had before.

feelings of ethics and morals and whether artists are going to be starving or not aside,

physical objects have inherently different properties compared to information.

one result of this is the sort of laws they are subject to. and i mean both the "lawbook" laws and the laws of physics/reality/information theory.

one example why intellectual property inherently cannot be granted the same protection as physical property is that no matter what the law says, you can protect your physical property simply by holding onto it.
this is why people lock their doors, even though it would be illegal for a thief to take their physical belongings if the door was open.

you cannot protect information in a similar manner. this is easily shown by the long list of failures of big corporations trying to implement DRM. DRM is pretty much nothing more than trying to turn that "etheric" substance known as "information" into something that sort-of abides by the same laws as physical objects.

you shouldn't want to protect information like that -- In My Opinion, at least. I love information, I love it exactly for those weird properties it has compared to physical objects. therefore I think it is wrong to try to take that away.

Now, don't get me wrong here. That doesn't make it right to "violate someone's Intellectual Property" (whatever that exactly means). myself, i share music illegally. but the stuff I just said above, isn't an argument trying to convince anyone that that is right.

all i'm saying is that due to the fundamental different properties of information, you can't just treat it the same way as physical property. information like this hasn't been widely available since a couple of centuries (at least in the sense that anyone cared if someone took it or not), and has only been possible to share on a massive scale since a decade or two. i don't have any proper solution either, but i do know that trying to treat information like it is a physical object, or even trying to force it to behave like a physical object is the wrong way to go about it.

Triple Zero wins 100 Internets for posting what I was thinking.

It gets even more interesting when you move the intellectual property debate into the arena of visual arts. "Copying" is a huge issue in the world of glass art (remember the Chihuly lawsuit last year?) and not only is it impossible to protect a design, a style, or a technique, it's ridiculous to even try. You can copyright photographs of your work, but not the work itself.

This upsets the shit out of some people. Personally, I feel like the only way to deal with it is to always move forward. If you're technically and creatively superior to your copiers, they won't be able to compete in your market.

Quote from: triple zero on April 01, 2008, 08:37:17 PM
one example why intellectual property inherently cannot be granted the same protection as physical property is that no matter what the law says, you can protect your physical property simply by holding onto it.
this is why people lock their doors, even though it would be illegal for a thief to take their physical belongings if the door was open.

A thief can still intrude to take your physical property.  (i.e. knock the door down).  Just as there is an intrusion when music, movies, etc. are illegally procured and then distributed.  It's the same idea as someone breaking and entering, and then putting the loot in the black market.  I don't buy that because one is solid and one is not that means that which is not solid cannot be protected.  It can be, it may be harder, but sometimes the hard things are worth doing.  This is a case where I believe it is worth doing. 

Quoteyou shouldn't want to protect information like that -- In My Opinion, at least. I love information, I love it exactly for those weird properties it has compared to physical objects. therefore I think it is wrong to try to take that away.

I completely disagree.  Again, I personally have no problem sharing my creative pursuits free of charge, because to me it's just a hobby.  But I understand how someone who actually does it for a living wants to protect their investment of time and energy.  It may be information, but it is still a product of labor.  That you can't hold it in your hand, imo, makes no difference. 

The difference is that with physical, if one person breaks in, then only that person can steal it, when you lock the door the next day, you are secure until somebody else who can pick locks or knock doors off their hinges shows up.

With IP, when one person unlocks it, everybody on the planet suddenly who has enough brainpower to install a program can now get past your locks.

Huh?  They don't need to break in again because the bozo's already downloaded your tunes and is broadcasting them across the internet.  They don't need to come to you to steal your IP, it'll be freely available.  Which is why I believe if it can be protected it should be protected.  The theft of Intellectual Property can be much more damaging to the holder because of the ease of replication.  Someone steals your ming vase, it's only one vase and you can go buy another if you want.  But, someone steals your next hit record, copies it, makes it freely available, now you are eating into someone's livelihood.  Once that toothpaste is out of the tube, you can't get it back in. 

I mean more in terms that once one guy figures out how to break a type of lock.  (AACS for example), he can then create a program that will break every lock of that type, not just the single one he ripped.

The theft isn't of the object itself, its the potential earnings.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2008, 09:39:16 PM
A thief can still intrude to take your physical property.  (i.e. knock the door down).  Just as there is an intrusion when music, movies, etc. are illegally procured and then distributed.   It's the same idea as someone breaking and entering, and then putting the loot in the black market.  I don't buy that because one is solid and one is not that means that which is not solid cannot be protected.  It can be, it may be harder, but sometimes the hard things are worth doing.  This is a case where I believe it is worth doing. 

i think you are forgetting that the artists sell the music.
imagine me buying (a copy of) a song, now i also own that song but i'm not allowed to share it with my friends, why is my ownership less of an ownership than the ownership of the artist?

Quote from: Cain on April 01, 2008, 10:01:10 PM
The theft isn't of the object itself, its the potential earnings.

To this point was my golden toiletseat comment aimed. if you believe ownership does not apply in the same way to information as to physical objects, then the earnings are more properly called desired. Just because you want it does not give you the right to have it.

O rly?

So artists should stfu and starve in the meantime? 

Way to go.  If small artists dont survive, they wont be worth investing in, and the bands themselves wont bother to produce music.  They may not have a choice, depending on their education, skills and local job market.  And in the meantime, the big companies will refuse to task risks on smaller bands, and less well appreciated genres.

I hope you like shitty pop and r'n'b, since thats all I'd invest in right now.  Why bother tasking a risk on say, The Empties when I can hire on a proven earner like Justin Timberlake?

Until you can change the economic system itself all you are doing is driving smaller artists who dont have the means to produce music by themselves, all day long, into the ground and clearing the path for larger artists, who can suffer the hits of downloads and still bring profits.  Or make music the province of rich playboys and other sorts of people who dont have to worry about working for a living.

Quote from: Cain on April 02, 2008, 12:18:29 PM

Until you can change the economic system itself

I agree with your proposed order of implementation. Just because my view is impractical to implement right now doesn't reduce its theoretical value.

Quote from: Regret on April 02, 2008, 12:07:51 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2008, 09:39:16 PM
A thief can still intrude to take your physical property.  (i.e. knock the door down).  Just as there is an intrusion when music, movies, etc. are illegally procured and then distributed.   It's the same idea as someone breaking and entering, and then putting the loot in the black market.  I don't buy that because one is solid and one is not that means that which is not solid cannot be protected.  It can be, it may be harder, but sometimes the hard things are worth doing.  This is a case where I believe it is worth doing. 

i think you are forgetting that the artists sell the music.
imagine me buying (a copy of) a song, now i also own that song but i'm not allowed to share it with my friends, why is my ownership less of an ownership than the ownership of the artist?

You own the product, not the means to make and reproduce the product.  That is what the copyright is for.  The artist owns that which was used to make the product, the lyrics and the music.  They, or the Record Company, own the rights to reproduce that.  What you are proposing is like breaking into the Hershey plant, stealing their assembly line, and then taking it home to make Hershey bars that you will then hand out to all of your friends.  You've infringed on Hershey's earning power by procuring their production process and giving the product away.  You do the same thing when you take an artist's song and then distribute it to people through the internet or some other means.  

Let me put it in real world terms.  You've got an underground metal band.  In the metal world they might be somewhat of a name, but outside they are a blip on the radar.  They are lucky if they sell 10,000 copies of an album they produce.  Now, let's say you have procured a digital copy of that album, you put it on the internet, suddenly 2000-3000 of those people who would've bought the CD now have it for free.  Now this band is only going to sell 7,000 copies.  This is drastically going to impact their earning power, they will have less money to put into the next album, nevermind their livelihood.  Take it further, worse case scenario, say 5000 or 6000 get the album, illegally for free.  Now you're talking about an impact that can potentially put the band in a situation where they need to close up shop because they can't afford to continue.  So, not only has the band's earning power been impacted, but now you've got 4000-5000 fans, who've faithfully, legally purchased music from the band, without their favorite band.  

So, we've been having a similar debate on the My Dying Bride forums.  I just wrote something there I want to share here that may better illustrate my P.O.V. on this topic:

Here's the way I look at it. The dollar, or whatever your national currency is, is a vote. When you spend money on something, in essence, you are casting a vote of support for a product or service. For example you pay for a Cheeseburger because you support Cheeseburgers, while you don't particularly like Tuna Sandwhiches, so you don't buy Tuna Sandwhiches.

It is a vote of support because if I want there to be more Cheeseburgers for me to enjoy, it is in my interest that the Cheeseburger-makers have this financial vote of support so that they may continue to make their Cheeseburgers which I can enjoy. If I an my fellow Cheeseburger-fans just raid the burger joint and take the Cheeseburgers, not only are they out that product, but they have no money now, to make more Cheeseburgers. So, not only have I screwed the Cheeseburger-makers but I've screwed myself because the Cheeseburgers are going to dry up. I'm not going to have to consider the Tuna Sandwhiches, which I really don't like.

In other words, if many people start just downloading and stealing the music and art from a bands like MDB who aren't world-wide famous, they may no longer be able to produce more music for us, and we will have to settle for something far less palatable, like *gasp* H.I.M.

Please, buy the CD's. I hate Tuna Sandwhiches, and I really, really hate H.I.M.

i haven't quite followed the discussion for the last page, but i think that's stupid reasoning.

money or currency is not a vote. there's no "official" score. it's just lubricant for trading goods and services.

when i buy something, it is because i want to trade part of the effort of my services that earned me that money for whatever other goods or service i want to acquire.

i just think that reasoning is flawed. i'm not saying that money isn't supporting the band, but looking at my money as some sort of thing to throw away as a "vote", it's a bit more than that, IMO.

adding to that, in the before previous post, you seem to imply there's a 1/1 relationship between people downloading an album and people buying an album. tell you one thing, nearly everybody i know who is "into" downloading music, has downloaded WAY more music than they would ever buy, my guess, 10 times on average (and much over a 100 times if i compare my CD rack with my mp3 music collection). i have a couple of MDB albums on my computer (didnt download them btw, ripped them from my ex-gf's CDs, but the point is the same, it's music i do not own--even though in the netherlands legislation doesnt criminalize this particular form of copyright violation), would i have bought them? of course not, i don't like MDB all that much.
same goes for 95% of the rest of my music collection. most of it i do like, sort of, but if i had to buy the CD, i wouldnt have bought it, but just done without that music.

so with your example, if the band gets 2000-3000 illegal downloads, i would sooner guess that would count to a loss of 200-300 CD sales. (and therefore a gain of 1800-2700 people being exposed to their music who would otherwise never have heard them at all)

oh and while i'm at it, you seem to have mistunderstood my previous post ITT:

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2008, 09:39:16 PM

Quote from: triple zero on April 01, 2008, 08:37:17 PMone example why intellectual property inherently cannot be granted the same protection as physical property is that no matter what the law says, you can protect your physical property simply by holding onto it.
this is why people lock their doors, even though it would be illegal for a thief to take their physical belongings if the door was open.

A thief can still intrude to take your physical property.  (i.e. knock the door down).  Just as there is an intrusion when music, movies, etc. are illegally procured and then distributed.  It's the same idea as someone breaking and entering, and then putting the loot in the black market.  I don't buy that because one is solid and one is not that means that which is not solid cannot be protected.  It can be, it may be harder, but sometimes the hard things are worth doing.  This is a case where I believe it is worth doing.

these things are not the same at all.

see, the difference is, breaking and entering is putting yourself at risk. it takes effort to break down a door. the point is that is it at all possible to protect physical property, even without laws.

protecting intellectual property, information, is not just "harder", it is incredibly hard, to the point that right now we haven't found yet a proper technological solution to do it without severely damaging the merchandise and estranging the customers. DRMed music just doesnt work.

it is impossible, because the ability to copy information is intrinsic to information itself. this is why it's made of fundamentally different stuff than physical property.

another example, right the other way around. this is just to show you how different these things are.

say you capture two spies, one has a secret technology device (physical property), the other has some secret knowledge about enemy bases (intellectual property).

- you can knock the first guy over the head and take his device.
- but to get the other guy's property you need to torture him, and even then you don't know if you got the right information (plus the bad PR torture gives).

Quote

Quoteyou shouldn't want to protect information like that -- In My Opinion, at least. I love information, I love it exactly for those weird properties it has compared to physical objects. therefore I think it is wrong to try to take that away.

I completely disagree.  Again, I personally have no problem sharing my creative pursuits free of charge, because to me it's just a hobby.  But I understand how someone who actually does it for a living wants to protect their investment of time and energy.  It may be information, but it is still a product of labor.  That you can't hold it in your hand, imo, makes no difference.

yes. and i agree with that, the notion that it is a product of labor.

but that wasn't what i said. it's just that you can't protect information from being copied, except with law enforcement. which makes it quite arbitrary to me.
see, the law forbids people from breakign and entering my house, so that i don't have to hit people over the head to prevent them from breaking into my house. but if the law didn't do that, i could still hit them over the head, it would just be messier and bloody.
when somebody copies or shares your intellectual property, there's nothing you can do about it, because most of the time you're not even aware that it's happening, let alone that you can find out who is doing it, where they live and go there and hit all of them over the head.

unless you got a lot of power, and an army of thugs .. kind of like the RIAA.


see i'm all for artists getting money for what they're doing. but i just don't see the point in trying to prevent digital information from being shared online.

hell, you know what's actually really REALLY bothering me about this? see you're a musician, you worry about your line of work being sold out to the big corporations that can keep up while the small ones can't.

you know what i see? i see awesome projects like Last.fm and Pandora. for starters, if it wasn't with all the copyright bullshit they could be about a 1000x more awesome. but what really sucks is, see i'm a web developer, i especially like to develop new and innovative applications. and guess what, i can't play in the Last.fm or Pandora market because i can't afford the army of lawyers i'd need to pull off something like that.

that pisses me off, there's this HUGE potential out there for organizing and sharing all this information in ways you and i can't even imagine yet, and yes there will be room for the artists to make their money in as well (otherwise, as you rightly say, where will the art come from), and it's getting there slowly, fortunately some people are more daring than others, willing to skate the edges of legality, but this copyright bullshit is clogging it all up and mostly taking away the money in this booming market from the rightful owners (being the artists and the software developers / social network creators / data infrastructure architects) to the big corporations that just use the money to spam old dead media like TV with ugly. oh and pay their managers.

by the way, if the above post doesn't sound very nice, seeing as it starts out calling you "stupid", ehh sorry for that. i mean nothing but well :)

Well, I like the reasoning and so I'm sticking to it.  I buy a My Dying Bride CD, not only because I enjoy physically having the CD, the cover art, the lyrics, but because I enjoy giving my financial support to My Dying Bride.  They have put their blood and soul into an art that has really spoken to me and given me some level of joy.  The very least I can do is throw 10 bucks their way.  And considering how many times I've played their albums, 10 bucks is a pittance to pay really.  

I agree that physically protecting Intellectual Property on the same level, and in the same manner, as physical property is a monumentous undertaking.  I also agree that it can be taken to extremes.  For example, the RIAA has suggested that merely ripping a CD I own, to my computer, violates copyright.  That, I think is taking it too far.  However, ripping that CD to my computer, then uploading it to MiHD, and then distributing it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on the internet, in my opinion, is kind of crappy.  It eats into the financial well-being of the artist and can potentially jeapordize their viability in the industry.  And of course this varies by artist, because a band like say, Radiohead, who are most likely financially set for life, can afford to have an album ripped and illegally distributed on the internet.  But a band like MDB, who are lucky to sell 10,000 copies of an album, have far less leeway.  It won't take much to eat into what they need to continue to record and produce albums.  

But because a thing is hard to do doesn't mean we should not do it.  

Quote from: triple zero on April 08, 2008, 03:24:46 PM
by the way, if the above post doesn't sound very nice, seeing as it starts out calling you "stupid", ehh sorry for that. i mean nothing but well :)

no worries.  I've put on my thick-skin for the week.  (I'll need it for my performance evaluation on Thursday)

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2008, 03:31:56 PMWell, I like the reasoning and so I'm sticking to it.  I buy a My Dying Bride CD, not only because I enjoy physically having the CD, the cover art, the lyrics, but because I enjoy giving my financial support to My Dying Bride.  They have put their blood and soul into an art that has really spoken to me and given me some level of joy.  The very least I can do is throw 10 bucks their way.  And considering how many times I've played their albums, 10 bucks is a pittance to pay really.  

I agree that physically protecting Intellectual Property on the same level, and in the same manner, as physical property is a monumentous undertaking.  I also agree that it can be taken to extremes.  For example, the RIAA has suggested that merely ripping a CD I own, to my computer, violates copyright.  That, I think is taking it too far.  However, ripping that CD to my computer, then uploading it to MiHD, and then distributing it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on the internet, in my opinion, is kind of crappy.  It eats into the financial well-being of the artist and can potentially jeapordize their viability in the industry.  And of course this varies by artist, because a band like say, Radiohead, who are most likely financially set for life, can afford to have an album ripped and illegally distributed on the internet.  But a band like MDB, who are lucky to sell 10,000 copies of an album, have far less leeway.  It won't take much to eat into what they need to continue to record and produce albums.  

But because a thing is hard to do doesn't mean we should not do it.  

okay. if i'm going to argue against this, i'd reall be starting to repeat myself, so i won't :)

lest to say, i do the same thing, which is why i've bought the three Shpongle albums and one OTT album. I should probably also buy the 2007 Younger Brother album because it's insanely good, but right now I can't spare the money (10 bucks? more like 12-13 euro over here), so maybe another day, in a few months or so.

and the other thing, i don't have any solutions, but i think they must be looked for in a direction that uses filesharing and all these extra features information has when compared to physical property.

this thread makes me sad  :x (i got about halfway, i'll give it another go in a minute.) see the thing is I've studied 4 years to be "a creative". yes i chose that path cus its IS rewarding, but also seeing as it is my learned-Trade to be "creative" that means that i've resigned my self to earn a living from what i enjoy.

twould seem people think living and enjoying ones self is mutually exlusive...  :|
but i'll get back to finishing the thread,

[after some thought]

In my not so recent past i only had pirated music (to be fair it was all pretty crap) but since being exposed to a variety of bands that (me being in a 3rd world country) i would not have had the oportunity to see live at a gig. I have now settled on the type of music and artists that i am willing to VOTE for  (as RWHN put it) and now have no qualms about paying up to double the price to import music i know i will enjoy.

[back to reading]

It may be worth noting that when you buy albums produced by major record labels, you're only sort of supporting the artist; you're supporting them in the sense that the record label will hopefully sell enough copies to continue putting out albums by that band, but financially, you'd be better off donating a quarter to them. What happens is the label gives the band a lump sum on signing, allowing them to quit their jobs, record an album, go on tour, etc. Then the label keeps the proceeds of record sales until that sum is (hopefully) paid back, after which it gives a very small percentage of record sales to the band. Most bands signed with major labels make almost all of their money from tours and merchandise like T-shirts and stickers.

So buy the T-shirt.

Yeah, but the little guys need you to buy the album too so that they can continue their recording career.  One of the bands I'm into has been in limbo for several years now because they can't find a label that will give them the money to record.  In this case it isn't due to downloading it's because they've turned into a ball of suck and fail, but it just illustrates the idea that album sales figures will be to the benefit of the artists' future viability. 

Totally, people should definitely buy albums whenever possible from little indie labels and bands who self-publish. Also, from Billy Nayer. He rules, and The American Astronaut is the best movie ever.

Quote from: Regret on April 02, 2008, 12:07:51 AM

Quote from: Cain on April 01, 2008, 10:01:10 PM
The theft isn't of the object itself, its the potential earnings.

To this point was my golden toiletseat comment aimed. if you believe ownership does not apply in the same way to information as to physical objects, then the earnings are more properly called desired. Just because you want it does not give you the right to have it.

Interestingly, the police do not believe a case of identity theft has taken place unless the thief successfully uses your identity to purchase something.  I spent about 10 minutes trying to get the officer to understand that it was, in fact, my fiance's identity that had been stolen, and thus that was the crime.  He continually said "Ah, but they didn't actually get the phones they tried to order with her social security number and identity, so no crime has taken place!"  No joke.  He also asked me quite discordian places like "Oh, your identity was stolen?  Well, where do you keep it?"  The bastard.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 02, 2008, 02:22:16 PM

Quote from: Regret on April 02, 2008, 12:07:51 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2008, 09:39:16 PM
A thief can still intrude to take your physical property.  (i.e. knock the door down).  Just as there is an intrusion when music, movies, etc. are illegally procured and then distributed.   It's the same idea as someone breaking and entering, and then putting the loot in the black market.  I don't buy that because one is solid and one is not that means that which is not solid cannot be protected.  It can be, it may be harder, but sometimes the hard things are worth doing.  This is a case where I believe it is worth doing. 

i think you are forgetting that the artists sell the music.
imagine me buying (a copy of) a song, now i also own that song but i'm not allowed to share it with my friends, why is my ownership less of an ownership than the ownership of the artist?

You own the product, not the means to make and reproduce the product.  That is what the copyright is for.  The artist owns that which was used to make the product, the lyrics and the music.  They, or the Record Company, own the rights to reproduce that.  What you are proposing is like breaking into the Hershey plant, stealing their assembly line, and then taking it home to make Hershey bars that you will then hand out to all of your friends.  You've infringed on Hershey's earning power by procuring their production process and giving the product away.  You do the same thing when you take an artist's song and then distribute it to people through the internet or some other means.  

Let me put it in real world terms.  You've got an underground metal band.  In the metal world they might be somewhat of a name, but outside they are a blip on the radar.  They are lucky if they sell 10,000 copies of an album they produce.  Now, let's say you have procured a digital copy of that album, you put it on the internet, suddenly 2000-3000 of those people who would've bought the CD now have it for free.  Now this band is only going to sell 7,000 copies.  This is drastically going to impact their earning power, they will have less money to put into the next album, nevermind their livelihood.  Take it further, worse case scenario, say 5000 or 6000 get the album, illegally for free.  Now you're talking about an impact that can potentially put the band in a situation where they need to close up shop because they can't afford to continue.  So, not only has the band's earning power been impacted, but now you've got 4000-5000 fans, who've faithfully, legally purchased music from the band, without their favorite band.  

It's more like stealing the recipe for hershey bars and making them for my friends, or copying the plans for the assembly line. Physical property DOES NOT respond in the same way as intellectual property to theft, get it through your thick head.

PS. do i have to pay my mommy everytime i use her recipe for brownies?
PPS.  000 says these things better then i do.

RWHN, surely you see the difference here?

indeed, if you buy an album, you don't own the rights to reproduce and/or share the music on it. (international) copyright laws see to that. but only copyright laws. which are just a sort of deal people made with eachother, about a century ago (i seem to recall it was 1908, at least). the fact that these laws were made up before anyone even had the notion to consider mass-distribution of information at the push of a button in the hands of the general public, kind of shows they might be out of date today and would require a serious re-thinking. as long as the big record companies hold all that power, that's of course never going to happen.

okay, but rights aside, you do own the means to reproduce this information. now owning a copy of the album, you have access to the music, the lyrics and whatever else you can make out from it, at the least you have the soundwaves, since that's the way a recording is generally represented.

the big difference here is that, contrary to your story with the hershey bars, you didn't need to break in or steal anything before you can commit this injustice.
with the hershey bars, you were already in trouble when you broke in and stole the assembly line, with the album, this is the same point as where you buy the album in the shop. Hershey probably doesn't want people breaking in their factory (no matter what they are going to do with the assembly line later on), while the artist actively wants people to buy that album (of course).

and that is IMO, why "illegal" copying is considered a problem, and is so widespread. it's not that it's a crime with a low threshold, it's not even got a "real" threshold at all. the act of copying, multiplying and sharing information comes so naturally with the medium, especially in this internet robot future, the only thing preventing people from doing it is a sort of social contract. whereas not stealing an assembly line in a factory carries with it a whole lot more consequences.

again, i'm still not trying to argue that one should screw over small underground bands, cause in the current environment, that is what you're doing when sharing music, although the severity of it i could argue about (no way that there's a 1:1 correspondence between people who would have bought the album and those who downloaded it).
i'm just trying to argue that current copyright laws are strictly artificial and nowhere near as natural as "thou shalt not steal" (referring to physical objects), which actually doesn't even need a law to prevent people from stealing, as individual property comes natural to humans, just as sharing of information does.

Ugh, I don't want to get bogged down in analogies and ratios.  It may be I came up with some stupid analogies, and no I don't think there is a 1:1 ratio of people buying and downloading.  However, I think the potential is there, as technologies become more advanced and accessible, for such technologies to be used to the detriment of artists, where it can have a very real impact on their ability to continue on as artists. 

I just think people work hard to make this art, and I think it's a real shame when supposed fans of these artists are too put out to shell out 10-13 bucks for that art.  It really isn't that much money in the grand scheme of things.  And as I've said we've been having this same debate on the My Dying Bride forums.  (their next album is due out sometime this year, I think)  And there are MDB fans blatantly saying they are going to download the album, illegally, if it becomes available.  And the bandmembers watch and read this forum.  If I were them I'd be fuckin pissed that some so-called fans have no problem just stealing their art.  It's a rotten shame it is. 

It's not "stealing". If I were to walk past a Hershey factory and magiquallie make a new hershey bar appear in my hand, out of thin air, then that wouldn't be stealing either.

Stealing is the act of taking something, without prior consent of the owner, and (implicit) leaving an empty space where said owner's property existed previously.

I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1. Just like if I built a car out of spare metal I had lying around I wouldn't expect ford to sue me for grand theft auto.

If the recording industries histrionics are actually true and selling music isn't a viable business model anymore then maybe bands will have to actually get up off their asses and tour for their money like they used to do in the good old days. Perish the thought that the lazy fucks will have to actually work a couple of months of the year, rather than a couple of weeks to pay for their lear jets and cocaine.

also - http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/ (http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/)

Quote from: SillyCybin on April 12, 2008, 06:32:04 PM
I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1.

When I download an album, I go to the store and steal one, and just throw it in the trash.

Fuck you hunter! You always beat me to the best ideas  :argh!:

I think that a lot of people stick their head in the sand when it comes to the ethics of copying other people's work. If they don't WANT you to copy it, it's dishonorable and unethical. On the other hand, some artists operate using a business model that makes copying favorable to them.

lol ethics  :lulz:

lol honor  :lulz:

Quote from: SillyCybin on April 12, 2008, 06:32:04 PM
I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1. Just like if I built a car out of spare metal I had lying around I wouldn't expect ford to sue me for grand theft auto.

Well, it's not the point that you are stealing a "thing" and leaving an empty space.  It's that you have stolen the output of the artist.  But if you got this downloaded CD from one of those sites on the net that are spreading CDs in digital form, for free, that it illegally procured, then you are probably just one of hundreds, maybe thousands who are getting that album for free.  So no it doesn't steal physical CDs and take them from the shelves.  The point is that now those hundreds or thousands are not going to buy those CDs, so you've taken that revenue stream from the artists.  The revenue stream that the artist needs to be able to keep recording. 

Now I know many of these people probably would not have any real intention of buying these CDs, even if the illegal source were not available.  But if it becomes more and more available, easier to get, you probably do start to see fans who would buy the CD, just get the illegal copy.  This eats into the smaller, less popular bands ability to continue recording.  And I think that's a fuckin shame, because it is often the smaller-time artists, imo, who make the most interesting music. 

I think things are actually the other way around. You say those who download an album will not buy it. I say to a great degree, those who do not download an album will not buy it. Of all the albums I bought in the last five years (the approximate time in which I have had my own musical taste), I downloaded all of them and gave them a good hear before buying them (except for a couple bands I saw live.) Music piracy allows me to get acquainted with many artists before choosing to spend money on them. If it weren't for music piracy, I would probably still be hearing MTV pop (likely Israeli radio pop as well) and not even like any of the albums I've actually bought. The internet has allowed me to get to know well over 90% of the bands I like (and by the way, My Dying Bride is an excellent example of this in my personal listening history.)
But I will admit I feel guilty for buying so few albums and downloading so many. At least when I really love a band I dish out the money.

-Verb,
smiling at his legal Opeth discography with great affection.

Yeah but that argument is BS now because of MySpace.  Most bands have a MySpace page now where you can hear samples, or in many cases, full songs of a band.  So you can decide then whether the band is your cup of tea or not.  It isn't necessary to download illegally to hear what a band sounds like.  Oh, and I'm not disagreeing with you just because you're an Opeth fan.   :wink:

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 02:37:57 PM

Quote from: SillyCybin on April 12, 2008, 06:32:04 PM
I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1. Just like if I built a car out of spare metal I had lying around I wouldn't expect ford to sue me for grand theft auto.

Now I know many of these people probably would not have any real intention of buying these CDs, even if the illegal source were not available.  But if it becomes more and more available, easier to get, you probably do start to see fans who would buy the CD, just get the illegal copy.

:Citation Required:

(non RIAA source preferably)

Meh, I dislike MySpace and find sample tracks can be misleading as to the quality of a whole album. I consider most good albums to be whole works of art, and I know some of my favorite albums today (such as almost any Pain of Salvation album, but especially The Perfect Element, Part I) are simply pointless without hearing the whole album several times. I didn't understand what the whole fuss was about, regarding Pain of Salvation, until I had heard that album a good five times and I started noticing the things I now find so awesome about it.

Quote from: SillyCybin on April 14, 2008, 04:21:40 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 02:37:57 PM

Quote from: SillyCybin on April 12, 2008, 06:32:04 PM
I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1. Just like if I built a car out of spare metal I had lying around I wouldn't expect ford to sue me for grand theft auto.

Now I know many of these people probably would not have any real intention of buying these CDs, even if the illegal source were not available.  But if it becomes more and more available, easier to get, you probably do start to see fans who would buy the CD, just get the illegal copy.

:Citation Required:

(non RIAA source preferably)

I said "probably".  It's my theory, based on my knowledge and experience with human behavior.  That if they have a choice between getting the easy free thing and the easy not-free thing.  They will go for the easy free thing, even if it is illegal. 

Quote from: st.verbatim on April 14, 2008, 04:28:21 PM
Meh, I dislike MySpace and find sample tracks can be misleading as to the quality of a whole album. I consider most good albums to be whole works of art, and I know some of my favorite albums today (such as almost any Pain of Salvation album, but especially The Perfect Element, Part I) are simply pointless without hearing the whole album several times. I didn't understand what the whole fuss was about, regarding Pain of Salvation, until I had heard that album a good five times and I started noticing the things I now find so awesome about it.

WTF, before the internet, bands released singles on the radio.  If you liked the singles, you went to the record shop and picked up the album.  When the hell did music fans become so fucking lazy? 

Listening to music on the radio is stealing too, surely?

Of course not, singles are promos.  In fact often times music videos, associated with singles, are called promos.  They are offering you a sample, a sneak peak of their art.  If you like the sample, you buy the album.  much like when you are given taste tests of food at shops.  You like the little nibble of parmesan you just sampled?  If you want more you buy the bigger chunk of cheese.  You don't wait until the shopkeeper is looking the other way and then nab it.  Throw some money to the guy who made you the cheese, it's a pittance compared to the enjoyment you receive from it. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 04:39:04 PM
Of course not, singles are promos.  In fact often times music videos, associated with singles, are called promos.  They are offering you a sample, a sneak peak of their art.  If you like the sample, you buy the album.  much like when you are given taste tests of food at shops.  You like the little nibble of parmesan you just sampled?  If you want more you buy the bigger chunk of cheese.  You don't wait until the shopkeeper is looking the other way and then nab it.  Throw some money to the guy who made you the cheese, it's a pittance compared to the enjoyment you receive from it. 

Enough with the "nab it" accusations - we've been through this already - it's still there, so I haven't nabbed it!

What Happened is I heard it once and wanted to listen to it again. If I remember a track that I heard in a friends house is that stealing by the same token?

And if the single is an advertisement then maybe they need to rethink their shit - market forces have now dictated that the whole album is an advertisiment - deal with it.

And I contend that piracy (or the whole P2P dynamic as a whole) allows artists to become well-known and/or to reach their target audience much faster and more effectively than promos allowed them. Regardless of the supposed ethical consideration involved in piracy.
Pragmatically, I think the P2P revolution is doing great things to commercial music.

It's sure as hell affording the artists the oppotunity to cut out the "industry" bulshit and, IMO, that's something music has been needing for centuries.

Quote from: st.verbatim on April 14, 2008, 04:46:40 PM
And I contend that piracy (or the whole P2P dynamic as a whole) allows artists to become well-known and/or to reach their target audience much faster and more effectively than promos allowed them. Regardless of the supposed ethical consideration involved in piracy.
Pragmatically, I think the P2P revolution is doing great things to commercial music.

Umm, see here's the thing.  If they don't get the money (which they don't when you pirate their music) they can't be a commercial artists.  I mean, how do you think they cover the costs for recording the music?  You think the label does it out of the goodness of their heart? 

When I pirate their music they get their money through the plain and simple fact that enough "good honest people" don't and that pays their wages.

The economics of the matter are that there are always enough goody two shoes assholes out there to cover my shenanigans.

 

Quote from: SillyCybin on April 14, 2008, 04:45:59 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 04:39:04 PM
Of course not, singles are promos.  In fact often times music videos, associated with singles, are called promos.  They are offering you a sample, a sneak peak of their art.  If you like the sample, you buy the album.  much like when you are given taste tests of food at shops.  You like the little nibble of parmesan you just sampled?  If you want more you buy the bigger chunk of cheese.  You don't wait until the shopkeeper is looking the other way and then nab it.  Throw some money to the guy who made you the cheese, it's a pittance compared to the enjoyment you receive from it. 

Enough with the "nab it" accusations - we've been through this already - it's still there, so I haven't nabbed it!

What Happened is I heard it once and wanted to listen to it again. If I remember a track that I heard in a friends house is that stealing by the same token?

Then buy the album or hum the tune in your head.  

QuoteAnd if the single is an advertisement then maybe they need to rethink their shit - market forces have now dictated that the whole album is an advertisiment - deal with it.

Yeah, the internet has killed the radio star, or at least levelled the fatal blow. Some artists do offer albums free, in a streaming fashion of course, not as a download.  But also some artists who've blown up big can afford to give away more than a smaller-time artists who needs the revenues from their album sales so they can continue to make music.  

Just remember:  Don't Copy That Floppy!!! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4)


Interestingly, some bands (or at least one: Radiohead) have experimented with releasing their albums in a purely online form.  Radiohead released their newest album on a "Pay if you want" basis with the option for free download available.  I think the average they got was around $10.

Personally, I'm a filthy pirate because I'm too poor to buy things.  Well, I was.  Now that I have an actual job I guess I'll have to find a new excuse. :(

Quote from: SillyCybin on April 14, 2008, 04:54:44 PM
When I pirate their music they get their money through the plain and simple fact that enough "good honest people" don't and that pays their wages.

The economics of the matter are that there are always enough goody two shoes assholes out there to cover my shenanigans.

Maybe, I'll still buy the albums anyway.  It's not just about being "good and honest", it's more about giving my support to a band I like.  $13 bucks is easy to spare to someone who brings a smile to my face.  

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 14, 2008, 04:59:38 PM
Just remember:  Don't Copy That Floppy!!! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4)


Interestingly, some bands (or at least one: Radiohead) have experimented with releasing their albums in a purely online form.  Radiohead released their newest album on a "Pay if you want" basis with the option for free download available.  I think the average they got was around $10.

Personally, I'm a filthy pirate because I'm too poor to buy things.  Well, I was.  Now that I have an actual job I guess I'll have to find a new excuse. :(

:asplode:

I'm done with this thread.  Not sure why I'm bothering honestly. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 05:00:09 PM

Quote from: SillyCybin on April 14, 2008, 04:54:44 PM
When I pirate their music they get their money through the plain and simple fact that enough "good honest people" don't and that pays their wages.

The economics of the matter are that there are always enough goody two shoes assholes out there to cover my shenanigans.

Maybe, I'll still buy the albums anyway.  It's not just about being "good and honest", it's more about giving my support to a band I like.  $13 bucks is easy to spare to someone who brings a smile to my face. 

Activator!  Now he's just going to keep doing it.  It's people like you, buying things like that, that let him continue to suffer under his delusions!  If everybody just downloaded things for free he wouldn't be able to use that argument, and thus would be morally obligated (due to failed excuse) to dole out the cash.  Quite paradoxical, if you think about it.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 05:01:23 PM
I'm done with this thread.  Not sure why I'm bothering honestly. 

Buying CDs was not on my list when I made about $650 a month and paid all but about $50 of it into bills, food, and rent.  Call me ludicrous.  It is quite possible I have no sense of ethics, as well.  Maybe I'm just a terrible person. :(

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 04:51:33 PM
If they don't get the money (which they don't when you pirate their music) they can't be a commercial artists.  I mean, how do you think they cover the costs for recording the music?  You think the label does it out of the goodness of their heart? 

It's quickly becoming so cheap to record a record that many artists don't actually need a record label to fund it. Your argument is surely correct as of about 1990, even 2000, but today things are different.
And still, you don't seem to have addressed the point that P2P is allowing the music to get to many, many more people that it would through traditional means. Word of mouth is a far more powerful advertiser than any form of marketing, and sharing is allowing word of mouth to actually translate into fans much more immediately than it used to (as the paywall is down). Fans buy albums and merch and go to concerts, even if initially many of them no longer pay to become fans.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 04:33:05 PM
WTF, before the internet, bands released singles on the radio.  If you liked the singles, you went to the record shop and picked up the album.  When the hell did music fans become so fucking lazy? 

Because I'm broke.

If any of the artist I download go hungry, I will feed them and give them a place to stay until they get back on their feet.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 14, 2008, 04:33:05 PMWTF, before the internet, bands released singles on the radio.  If you liked the singles, you went to the record shop and picked up the album.  When the hell did music fans become so fucking lazy?

what do you mean, lazy???

there's new technology that makes discovering new music a LOT easier, but using it is lazy?

c'mon ..

damn i wish albums were 13 dollars(thats about 7 euros right?) then more people might actually buy them things.

here a album is 20-25 euro a new album by a famous band comes to 30 euro.... i wonder how much of that actually ends up with the artists?

I'd still download just as much though.

20-25 euro?

i suggest you start buying your CDs somewhere else than the "Free Record Shop" or "The Music Store" ;-)

try "Plato", it's a national chain afaik and has most CDs for 10-15 euros.
or try some tiny private local CD store.

for 20-25 euro you might as well order them online because even including shipping you're going to be below 18 euros.

God, I'm starting to feel lucky to live in the US, because I buy most of my CDs for $10 on Amazon or from the musician's websites.

TBH i haven't bought a CD in at least 3 years, except for some stuff at festivals and at shows from local bands.

i was thinking of the free record shop :D
Taking the worst example to prove a point is fun :D
and technically not exaggerating.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/04/myspace_music

This actually has some potential.  Surprisingly, I can find myself in agreement with this, as a business model.  I presume the money would come from marketing on the site which, to be honest, is likely to be pretty high if you are combining legally free music and the Myspace brand name.

I can't see any flaws so far, anyone else wish to comment?

unless they do a complete rewrite of their core code it's going to be a usability and security trainwreck, seeing what currently makes up myspace. their code really, really, absolutely sucks.

apart from that, the business model seems like a fine plan, as far as i can judge, they're not entirely clear about the details yet.

also they said streaming is free, but "if they want to make it portable they can buy it", that's a bit odd. again one of those things you can only enforce by agreeing "you're not allowed to do that", because ultimately it doesn't matter one bit if the music "streams" to my computer or if it "downloads"--it's the same thing. because it completely depends on what the computer of the end-user does with the data, delete it or save it. and it's their computer, they have the right to reverse engineer and circumvent any software that prevents them from doing that. i could flip a button and stream the download or download the stream, it's the same bits going through the same tube, afterall.

Yeah, I sorta posted before really reading the second page, so I saw that as well.

However, their own security people have to know this is going to happen, and if there is no large amount of downloads, it may force them to consider the model I suggested more closely.

It's an interesting idea.  I'm not super tech-savy so I can't comment on that aspect.  But if it works the way it is described I think it'll be a good thing.  Of course it's going to be another nail in the coffin of Free Radio.  Radio was a great tool in its time to break artists and to get their music.  But the listener was confined to the playlist that the program managers drew up.  Now they can just point and click to whatever they want to hear.  It'll be good for artists too in that artists who typically don't get played on radio can get more listens.  But again, I don't know a whole helluva lot about the technology piece so it may be crap too. 

Quote from: triple zero on April 18, 2008, 12:32:06 PM
unless they do a complete rewrite of their core code it's going to be a usability and security trainwreck, seeing what currently makes up myspace. their code really, really, absolutely sucks.

That's the first thing I thought as I read the article. I've never seen any of the code but you can feel it.

Quote from: triple zero on April 18, 2008, 12:32:06 PM
also they said streaming is free, but "if they want to make it portable they can buy it", that's a bit odd. again one of those things you can only enforce by agreeing "you're not allowed to do that", because ultimately it doesn't matter one bit if the music "streams" to my computer or if it "downloads"--it's the same thing. because it completely depends on what the computer of the end-user does with the data, delete it or save it. and it's their computer, they have the right to reverse engineer and circumvent any software that prevents them from doing that. i could flip a button and stream the download or download the stream, it's the same bits going through the same tube, afterall.

Currently on a myspace band profile, if you check the difference of quality between steamed and downloaded audio the downloads win out. I'm not sure entirely how it works but the streaming sucks.

Quote from: Xooxe on April 18, 2008, 10:46:08 PM

Quote from: triple zero on April 18, 2008, 12:32:06 PM
unless they do a complete rewrite of their core code it's going to be a usability and security trainwreck, seeing what currently makes up myspace. their code really, really, absolutely sucks.

That's the first thing I thought as I read the article. I've never seen any of the code but you can feel it.

well, the fact that the guys on sla.ckers.org (hackers forum) were playing "break the new myspace filter" as a sport and succeeded in finding about one XSS exploit every week last year, while the myspace ppl kept updating their filters, completely oblivious to the "right way" to do it, also kind of speaks for itself.

i'm not sure if they finally patched up their filters good, or if the hackers just got bored.

(about the "right way", there's some quite decent ways to protect from XSS but they were just plain dumb about it)

* Internet says everyone is an artist/author etc.

* Some bands have become famous through the internet alone and gone on to make millions....

* People love the big screen, something special about the cinema vs. youtube

Radiohead: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/02/digitalmedia.musicnews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_placings