So, here at PD, we've all heard the arguments for and against copyright a million times, its a classic round here, as an internet community, this is clearly something that resides somewhere in the collective consciousness. So I'm going to skip the bit where I argue that copyright is "immoral" or some ridiculous thing like that, and start with a few basic points, that are probably important in understanding the rest.
First up: Labour as an extension of the self.
The idea that the things we create should be owned by us. I'm pretty cool with this idea, its good. In fact I really have no quarrel with the kind of copyright law that enforces this, but this is getting awfully close to discussions we've had before no?
Ok, lets move on quickly:
The ownership of "ideas". Well this one is a bit weird ain't it. The ownership of ideas.
Now just what does that mean?
I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).
So one day, I'm reading some of Dok's work. And now copyright starts to get a bit weird, because as soon as I've read it, I have, to some extent copied it. It's right there in my head. And furthermore, it is now (arguably) impossible for me to make and creative work which is not a derivative work.
But that's just philosophical rubbish, and in all practical cases (pretty much), see above (labour etc.)
Ok so I quite like copyright, what's my beef with music then?
Music piracy happens. And I'd bet in a lot of caes, it doesn't happen because of disrespect for the artist, or their property or anything like that. I'm willing to bet it happens because people want to listen to more music than they can afford to listen to. Am I right? (I'm probably right).
What annoys me most, is the record industry's reaction to this. More and more legislation against piracy because it is "killing the industry". I call bullshit. Piracy is actually killing their monopoly, never before has it been easier to listen to a whole slew of artists who you've never heard of and probably aren't even signed. I think things like Spotify and last.fm are a move in the right direction.
I annoys me that "the record industry" pushes legislation instead of innovation. The industry is marketing to itself not to the customer, that is why it is failing.
Ok, that's probably just about it for music, let me know if I missed anything.
Acadmic texts. Do you have any fucking idea how expensive that shit is? If someone can explain exactly how education only being for those who can afford it is OK, maybe I'll back down, but probably not, because you'll probably be wrong.
Yeh, I didn't have much to say on that.
<3's and fucking xx's
edd
I hear ya on the music thing. I download a whole load of music, but I also spend a high percentage of my income on music. I'm kinda bored with the music industry telling me I'm a terrible person for this, y'know?
In regards to academic texts, more and more scientists are responding to the inaccessibility of information and the expenses of publishing (for both the author of articles and institutions such as universities that must pay thousands of dollars a year for access) by creating and publishing in open access journals.
Many of these difficulties are summarized in this open letter (http://www2.pms-lj.si/illiesia/html/crisis.html) from Henry Hagedom, one of the founders of the open access journal titled Journal of Insect Science.
Likewise, the journal page that that article is hosted on, Illiesia, is excellent. The editors have outlined their model, publishing entirely online except for physical copies which are deposited in at least five centers of learning (as required by the ICZN for new species descriptions) and upon request, as well as cd copies. In all cases every article is there in pdf format, freely accessible. Since the only real costs are website hosting, printing a few copies and making the cds, the journal is very cheap while still retaining rigorous peer review (you'd be surprised at the number of people who work on stoneflies).
All journals which are open access to at least some extent are cataloged on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (http://www.doaj.org/). Theres a good list there, regardless of your discipline.
It warms my heart that stuff like that is being done, thanks especially for the open access journals link. I guess I'm just a bit annoyed that the "big shift" seems to be a long way off in a lot of ways, if ya get what I mean
x
edd
One thing I find useful is viewing copyright issues in pragmatic terms rather than ethical ones.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 04:14:13 PM
It warms my heart that stuff like that is being done, thanks especially for the open access journals link. I guess I'm just a bit annoyed that the "big shift" seems to be a long way off in a lot of ways, if ya get what I mean
x
edd
In the academic world, the big shift is coming on fast. Once it was established that open access journals could have just as rigorous peer review as traditional print journals, people have taken them seriously. The PLoS series of journals is a stellar example of this.
But my examples are all dealing with information which scientists publish because they WANT it to be as widely and freely distributed as possible. It's different than publishing a book, or a cd, because the payback in those cases isn't the recognition for ideas but the currency the person receives in payment. True, copyright period (70 years plus the lifetime of the author now?) is indecently restrictive, but I can copy books for the purpose of research anyway. It does make it that much harder to find the books, though.
As for things that are done for entertainment (novels, movies, and music), well, just get with it. If you want to be entertained, you have to be willing to pay for entertainment. It's not like your life will be over if you can't buy that newest cd, that just out novel, can't pay to go to the theater.
Re-reading I can see how the entertainment point could have come across as a bit "boohoo I can't afford the cool shit I want", but my main gripe is that it seems that instead of responding to changing markets and different demands from consumers, the record industry has tried to create the demand that they want. I'm not sure if that makes sense, uh, I'll try with a ham handed example:
Ok, imagine CD's have just been invented, and everyone wants cd's because they are cheaper, and they can be transported and shared easier, the quality is better, all sorts of reasons. Then, instead of jumping on the bandwagon, and finding a way to make putting music onto CD's and selling it that way, the record industry uses its monetary influence (I did warn it was ham handed no?), to try and make putting music onto CD's illegal, so it doesn't have to restructure its current market based on vinyl and tape.
It seems to me that (and this really is just me making shit up) any new technology can be both detract and improve a certain market or product or whatever, but it is always going to detrimental if its resisted. I think someone (somewhere), needs to grab internet filesharing by the balls and say LETS FUCKING TURN THIS IN OUR FAVOUR. I don't know how, it's certainly harder than other technological changes that entertainment industries have faced, but I also think it is possible.
x
edd
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
So, here at PD, we've all heard the arguments for and against copyright a million times, its a classic round here, as an internet community, this is clearly something that resides somewhere in the collective consciousness. So I'm going to skip the bit where I argue that copyright is "immoral" or some ridiculous thing like that, and start with a few basic points, that are probably important in understanding the rest.
First up: Labour as an extension of the self.
The idea that the things we create should be owned by us. I'm pretty cool with this idea, its good. In fact I really have no quarrel with the kind of copyright law that enforces this, but this is getting awfully close to discussions we've had before no?
Ok, lets move on quickly:
The ownership of "ideas". Well this one is a bit weird ain't it. The ownership of ideas.
Now just what does that mean?
I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).
So one day, I'm reading some of Dok's work. And now copyright starts to get a bit weird, because as soon as I've read it, I have, to some extent copied it. It's right there in my head. And furthermore, it is now (arguably) impossible for me to make and creative work which is not a derivative work.
:asplode:
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
But that's just philosophical rubbish, and in all practical cases (pretty much), see above (labour etc.)
Ok so I quite like copyright, what's my beef with music then?
Music piracy happens. And I'd bet in a lot of caes, it doesn't happen because of disrespect for the artist, or their property or anything like that. I'm willing to bet it happens because people want to listen to more music than they can afford to listen to. Am I right? (I'm probably right).
What annoys me most, is the record industry's reaction to this. More and more legislation against piracy because it is "killing the industry". I call bullshit. Piracy is actually killing their monopoly, never before has it been easier to listen to a whole slew of artists who you've never heard of and probably aren't even signed. I think things like Spotify and last.fm are a move in the right direction.
I annoys me that "the record industry" pushes legislation instead of innovation. The industry is marketing to itself not to the customer, that is why it is failing.
Ok, that's probably just about it for music, let me know if I missed anything.
Acadmic texts. Do you have any fucking idea how expensive that shit is? If someone can explain exactly how education only being for those who can afford it is OK, maybe I'll back down, but probably not, because you'll probably be wrong.
Yeh, I didn't have much to say on that.
<3's and fucking xx's
edd
I agree with you on the aspect of the expense of textbooks, and classes (which you didn't necessarily mention, but I'm lumping them in), that they should be more affordable to common man. I mean, everyone has a right to learn, whether they choose to beyond high school is their prerogative. However, those who do want to, but can't because of their current environment or housing situation, should be able to without filling out a mountain of paperwork.
I'm not saying schooling should be free; I'm just thinking it should be more accessible.
As for music Piracy,
It makes me think of the Weird Al song, Don't Download this Song, where he says, "Don't take away money from artists just like me, How else can I afford another Solid Gold Humvee? And diamond studded swimming pools, these things don't grow on trees..."
Pfft. Artists have all the money they need that they throw away. They should donate it to some sort of fund instead of wasting it on expensive useless shit for their own selfish satisfaction.
/rant
Quote from: Sir Fronkensteen of the 9th Realm in Sector 7 on October 16, 2010, 06:26:21 PM
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
So, here at PD, we've all heard the arguments for and against copyright a million times, its a classic round here, as an internet community, this is clearly something that resides somewhere in the collective consciousness. So I'm going to skip the bit where I argue that copyright is "immoral" or some ridiculous thing like that, and start with a few basic points, that are probably important in understanding the rest.
First up: Labour as an extension of the self.
The idea that the things we create should be owned by us. I'm pretty cool with this idea, its good. In fact I really have no quarrel with the kind of copyright law that enforces this, but this is getting awfully close to discussions we've had before no?
Ok, lets move on quickly:
The ownership of "ideas". Well this one is a bit weird ain't it. The ownership of ideas.
Now just what does that mean?
I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).
So one day, I'm reading some of Dok's work. And now copyright starts to get a bit weird, because as soon as I've read it, I have, to some extent copied it. It's right there in my head. And furthermore, it is now (arguably) impossible for me to make and creative work which is not a derivative work.
:asplode:
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
But that's just philosophical rubbish, and in all practical cases (pretty much), see above (labour etc.)
Ok so I quite like copyright, what's my beef with music then?
Music piracy happens. And I'd bet in a lot of caes, it doesn't happen because of disrespect for the artist, or their property or anything like that. I'm willing to bet it happens because people want to listen to more music than they can afford to listen to. Am I right? (I'm probably right).
What annoys me most, is the record industry's reaction to this. More and more legislation against piracy because it is "killing the industry". I call bullshit. Piracy is actually killing their monopoly, never before has it been easier to listen to a whole slew of artists who you've never heard of and probably aren't even signed. I think things like Spotify and last.fm are a move in the right direction.
I annoys me that "the record industry" pushes legislation instead of innovation. The industry is marketing to itself not to the customer, that is why it is failing.
Ok, that's probably just about it for music, let me know if I missed anything.
Acadmic texts. Do you have any fucking idea how expensive that shit is? If someone can explain exactly how education only being for those who can afford it is OK, maybe I'll back down, but probably not, because you'll probably be wrong.
Yeh, I didn't have much to say on that.
<3's and fucking xx's
edd
I agree with you on the aspect of the expense of textbooks, and classes (which you didn't necessarily mention, but I'm lumping them in), that they should be more affordable to common man. I mean, everyone has a right to learn, whether they choose to beyond high school is their prerogative. However, those who do want to, but can't because of their current environment or housing situation, should be able to without filling out a mountain of paperwork.
I'm not saying schooling should be free; I'm just thinking it should be more accessible.
As for music Piracy,
It makes me think of the Weird Al song, Don't Download this Song, where he says, "Don't take away money from artists just like me, How else can I afford another Solid Gold Humvee? And diamond studded swimming pools, these things don't grow on trees..."
Pfft. Artists have all the money they need that they throw away. They should donate it to some sort of fund instead of wasting it on expensive useless shit for their own selfish satisfaction.
/rant
Bullshit. Why shouldn't they be entitled to make money on their creativity and talent? If it's so fucking easy then go do it yourself. Or do you just see the on stage glory and none of the off stage work and risk they take.
The stages are built by the Belgian company Stageco, and construction of each requires the use of high-pressure and innovative hydraulic systems.[11] The steel structure is 164 feet tall—doubling the size of the stadium set for The Rolling Stones' A Bigger Bang Tour, the previous highest—can hold up to 200 tonnes underneath it, and requires 120 trucks to transport each of the 3 sets constructed to support the tour.[8][12] Each leg of the structure contains its own sound system.[8] T
he cost of each structure is between £15 million and £20 million.[13] As a result the tour is heavily insured.[4] The size of the stage has led to some problems with its construction in certain venues.
The band paid $2 million to raise the HD video screen in Cowboys Stadium for their concert in Arlington, and are paying $3 million to expand the Hippodrome de Montréal into a temporary stadium for their forthcoming concert in Montreal.[14][15] The 360° tour crew consists of 137 touring production crew supplemented by over 120 hired locally.[16][17]
Daily costs of the production are approximately $750,000, not including the stage construction; the majority of this comes from truck rentals, transportation, and staff wages.[18]
The tour is not expected to break even until the conclusion of the second leg.[18]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_360%C2%B0_Tour
Learn to fucking fact.
I wasn't saying they weren't entitled to it at all. Sure, they are. They did work for it. But I feel that wasting their hard-earned money on stuff they don't need is pointless.
I suppose I wasn't being specific about "Artists". I'm sorry I lumped them all into one group. What I was referring to was:
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1004293/MTV_Cribs_Snoop_Dogg
How many rap artists spend A LOT of their money on cars...
From now on, I'll refrain from using "all" in my opinions.
Sorry if my stupidity angered you. At 18, I'm still forming my opinions on the world, and they change constantly. But I'm not using that as an excuse for what I said. It's be a pretty lame excuse.
I'm just a dumbass. :x
Quote from: Sir Fronkensteen of the 9th Realm in Sector 7 on October 16, 2010, 07:14:31 PM
I wasn't saying they weren't entitled to it at all. Sure, they are. They did work for it. But I feel that wasting their hard-earned money on stuff they don't need is pointless.
I suppose I wasn't being specific about "Artists". I'm sorry I lumped them all into one group. What I was referring to was:
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1004293/MTV_Cribs_Snoop_Dogg
How many rap artists spend A LOT of their money on cars...
From now on, I'll refrain from using "all" in my opinions.
It's their money. How would you like for them to tell you how to spend yours?
On a related note (and maybe I'm pulling this outta my ass), but I'm fairly sure that for smaller tours, the artist actually benefits a lot more from touring than from record sales, because the label/promoters don't take as big a cut of the profits as with record sales (where the artist gets something ridiculously low like 2% of sales :citationneeded:)
I'm certainly not going to argue that artists should not be paid, just that the way the market interacts with the consumer is in need of an overhaul.
x
edd
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 16, 2010, 07:18:57 PM
Quote from: Sir Fronkensteen of the 9th Realm in Sector 7 on October 16, 2010, 07:14:31 PM
I wasn't saying they weren't entitled to it at all. Sure, they are. They did work for it. But I feel that wasting their hard-earned money on stuff they don't need is pointless.
I suppose I wasn't being specific about "Artists". I'm sorry I lumped them all into one group. What I was referring to was:
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1004293/MTV_Cribs_Snoop_Dogg
How many rap artists spend A LOT of their money on cars...
From now on, I'll refrain from using "all" in my opinions.
It's their money. How would you like for them to tell you how to spend yours?
Considering I don't have any...
Point taken. Shutting up now.
This is not to suggest that major record cartels are irrelevant. Previously undiscovered artists benefit from the huge promotional break a major has to offer. It takes a ton of funds to break a new artist -- funds most artists don't have on their own. But it's important to weigh the pros and cons of signing to a major before making the plunge. What's the real cost of signing a freaking 5-album major deal in the long run? What does it mean when an artist has to recoup, say $250,000 of her promo budget while the label earns 10 times that amount? Keep in mind that most artists makes $0 from royalty points until recoupment is clear. That's sad.
http://rap.about.com/od/articles/a/TheCostOfARecordDeal.htm
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 16, 2010, 07:30:45 PM
This is not to suggest that major record cartels are irrelevant. Previously undiscovered artists benefit from the huge promotional break a major has to offer. It takes a ton of funds to break a new artist -- funds most artists don't have on their own. But it's important to weigh the pros and cons of signing to a major before making the plunge. What's the real cost of signing a freaking 5-album major deal in the long run? What does it mean when an artist has to recoup, say $250,000 of her promo budget while the label earns 10 times that amount? Keep in mind that most artists makes $0 from royalty points until recoupment is clear. That's sad.
http://rap.about.com/od/articles/a/TheCostOfARecordDeal.htm
Just highlighted the stuff I think is important here:
I think that major record cartels will become irrelevant if they are not careful. To get a new artist into the public consciousness now, can be done almost entirely for free (thanks to the web), the Dresden Dolls for example, pretty much just advertised on the web that they wanted to play, and play they did.
Admittedly top-end recording and distribution are costly and new artists rarely have enough money to do it independently, on the other hand, web based distribution has almost zero cost in comparison, which also means that the artist can (hypothetically) make a much greater profit by being independent from record labels. maybe record labels should go back to their nomenclature: and deal more exclusively with recording?
Just thoughts...
x
edd
One word. Promotion.
A very expensive procedure.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 16, 2010, 07:43:10 PM
One word. Promotion.
A very expensive procedure.
This.
Spend money to make money...
I revoke my previous rant.
well kinda what I'm saying that self-promotion via the web is effective and (basically) free, Dresden Dolls are the best example of this I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are, and will be more.
x
edd
Fred
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 06:18:59 PM
Re-reading I can see how the entertainment point could have come across as a bit "boohoo I can't afford the cool shit I want", but my main gripe is that it seems that instead of responding to changing markets and different demands from consumers, the record industry has tried to create the demand that they want. I'm not sure if that makes sense, uh, I'll try with a ham handed example:
Ok, imagine CD's have just been invented, and everyone wants cd's because they are cheaper, and they can be transported and shared easier, the quality is better, all sorts of reasons. Then, instead of jumping on the bandwagon, and finding a way to make putting music onto CD's and selling it that way, the record industry uses its monetary influence (I did warn it was ham handed no?), to try and make putting music onto CD's illegal, so it doesn't have to restructure its current market based on vinyl and tape.
It seems to me that (and this really is just me making shit up) any new technology can be both detract and improve a certain market or product or whatever, but it is always going to detrimental if its resisted. I think someone (somewhere), needs to grab internet filesharing by the balls and say LETS FUCKING TURN THIS IN OUR FAVOUR. I don't know how, it's certainly harder than other technological changes that entertainment industries have faced, but I also think it is possible.
x
edd
I still think it's a sob story. Take my man Andrew York. Successful classical guitarist, excellent modern compositions. Has his own website, sells not only cds but mp3s AND sheet music AND various other items. When a new recording set comes out, I usually buy the mp3s because they're cheaper and less work. But interestingly, I would rather buy the cds as they come with notes about compositions that I wouldn't get with the tracks alone. But I still BUY the music.
Again, it's entertainment. There is lots of entertainment out there. You don't have to purchase anything to be entertained (I'd hope), but if you are going to use someone else's creation for entertainment and they're selling it rather than giving it away, then buy it. Otherwise, boo hoo hoo. It's not like it's a necessity.
I do buy music, when I don't buy I listen to it through "legitimate" means (spotify etc.), and when I want something which is actually not available to buy (live recordings etc.), I download it.
This is not about whether or not I can afford to buy music, it is about a stagnant industry, which is to say, instaed of being innovative in dealing with the "problem" of file sharing, record companies sit around whining about it, or spending thousands of pounds on copy protection that ultimately doesn't work.
I'm saying turn "problem" into "opportunity". That's all.
x
edd
also, FRED?
Saw his Album in Hot Topic. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 07:47:14 PM
well kinda what I'm saying that self-promotion via the web is effective and (basically) free, Dresden Dolls are the best example of this I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are, and will be more.
x
edd
Many artists may be able to make great music and fail at promoting it. It's a part of doing business. Promoters have the connections needed to get your stuff out there.
I am learning a lot going through the process of getting published.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 07:57:20 PM
I do buy music, when I don't buy I listen to it through "legitimate" means (spotify etc.), and when I want something which is actually not available to buy (live recordings etc.), I download it.
This is not about whether or not I can afford to buy music, it is about a stagnant industry, which is to say, instaed of being innovative in dealing with the "problem" of file sharing, record companies sit around whining about it, or spending thousands of pounds on copy protection that ultimately doesn't work.
I'm saying turn "problem" into "opportunity". That's all.
x
edd
Or just listen to what you want to listen to. It eliminates the bitching, and increases the enjoyment.
I think you're missing his point, and I think he's absolutely correct. The big 5 have COMPLETELY missed the boat as far as turning new technology into something they can use and profit from rather than taking a "HEY YOU KIDS GET YOUR FILE-SHARING OFFA MY LAWN!" approach. Now, I'll freely admit to illegally downloading an entire metric fuckton of music. When I really like a band, I make it a point to go to their shows and/or buy some merch direct from their booth or website, but that's not the point. The point is, if the record companies set up a site similar to Limewire (I don't use Limewire, but you know what I mean) and charged either for a block of downloads or a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, I'd be willing to pay that fee. The artists themselves make FAR more money off of touring and selling merchandise than off of album sales, so it would be in their best interest to sacrifice some of their album cut or per-song cut in order to gain wider exposure (and the reality is that when you buy a $15 CD, the band makes less than a dollar of that) and the record companies would still have a revenue stream.
Now, you could also make the argument that traditional record companies are completely obsolete, and that a model incorporating separate recording/producing and promotion companies would make much more sense, with it being up to the artists to pick and choose which of either they want to work with.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 16, 2010, 10:08:58 PM
I think you're missing his point, and I think he's absolutely correct. The big 5 have COMPLETELY missed the boat as far as turning new technology into something they can use and profit from rather than taking a "HEY YOU KIDS GET YOUR FILE-SHARING OFFA MY LAWN!" approach. Now, I'll freely admit to illegally downloading an entire metric fuckton of music. When I really like a band, I make it a point to go to their shows and/or buy some merch direct from their booth or website, but that's not the point. The point is, if the record companies set up a site similar to Limewire (I don't use Limewire, but you know what I mean) and charged either for a block of downloads or a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, I'd be willing to pay that fee. The artists themselves make FAR more money off of touring and selling merchandise than off of album sales, so it would be in their best interest to sacrifice some of their album cut or per-song cut in order to gain wider exposure (and the reality is that when you buy a $15 CD, the band makes less than a dollar of that) and the record companies would still have a revenue stream.
Now, you could also make the argument that traditional record companies are completely obsolete, and that a model incorporating separate recording/producing and promotion companies would make much more sense, with it being up to the artists to pick and choose which of either they want to work with.
I'd take the second.
Quote from: Kai on October 16, 2010, 04:09:15 PM
All journals which are open access to at least some extent are cataloged on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (http://www.doaj.org/). Theres a good list there, regardless of your discipline.
And there goes what remained of my free time. One of the advantages of leaving Uni was that I wasn't spending all my spare time endlessly browsing online journals...
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 16, 2010, 10:08:58 PM
I think you're missing his point, and I think he's absolutely correct. The big 5 have COMPLETELY missed the boat as far as turning new technology into something they can use and profit from rather than taking a "HEY YOU KIDS GET YOUR FILE-SHARING OFFA MY LAWN!" approach. Now, I'll freely admit to illegally downloading an entire metric fuckton of music. When I really like a band, I make it a point to go to their shows and/or buy some merch direct from their booth or website, but that's not the point. The point is, if the record companies set up a site similar to Limewire (I don't use Limewire, but you know what I mean) and charged either for a block of downloads or a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, I'd be willing to pay that fee. The artists themselves make FAR more money off of touring and selling merchandise than off of album sales, so it would be in their best interest to sacrifice some of their album cut or per-song cut in order to gain wider exposure (and the reality is that when you buy a $15 CD, the band makes less than a dollar of that) and the record companies would still have a revenue stream.
Now, you could also make the argument that traditional record companies are completely obsolete, and that a model incorporating separate recording/producing and promotion companies would make much more sense, with it being up to the artists to pick and choose which of either they want to work with.
This reminds me of 000s 'Video stores should be allowed films on DVD.
But the video stores don't fight for it and the companies don't allow it. Nobody's spotting the big picture.
As far as the companies go there's an epic failure of vision and a bloody minded buisiness as usual approach. Which is OK, if you're indifferent about the existence of your industry.
CHANGING MY BUSINESS MODEL IS RISKY THOUGH! WHY NOT JUST USE LOBBYISTS TO TRY AND STAND ATHWART TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESS, YELLING "STOP"?
\
:joshua:
Quote from: Cain on October 17, 2010, 01:41:38 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 16, 2010, 04:09:15 PM
All journals which are open access to at least some extent are cataloged on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (http://www.doaj.org/). Theres a good list there, regardless of your discipline.
And there goes what remained of my free time. One of the advantages of leaving Uni was that I wasn't spending all my spare time endlessly browsing online journals...
My bad. 8)
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2010, 01:13:37 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 16, 2010, 10:08:58 PM
I think you're missing his point, and I think he's absolutely correct. The big 5 have COMPLETELY missed the boat as far as turning new technology into something they can use and profit from rather than taking a "HEY YOU KIDS GET YOUR FILE-SHARING OFFA MY LAWN!" approach. Now, I'll freely admit to illegally downloading an entire metric fuckton of music. When I really like a band, I make it a point to go to their shows and/or buy some merch direct from their booth or website, but that's not the point. The point is, if the record companies set up a site similar to Limewire (I don't use Limewire, but you know what I mean) and charged either for a block of downloads or a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, I'd be willing to pay that fee. The artists themselves make FAR more money off of touring and selling merchandise than off of album sales, so it would be in their best interest to sacrifice some of their album cut or per-song cut in order to gain wider exposure (and the reality is that when you buy a $15 CD, the band makes less than a dollar of that) and the record companies would still have a revenue stream.
Now, you could also make the argument that traditional record companies are completely obsolete, and that a model incorporating separate recording/producing and promotion companies would make much more sense, with it being up to the artists to pick and choose which of either they want to work with.
I'd take the second.
yeah, I think that approach makes more sense, but given that it assumes the eventual demise of traditional record companies I figure the first scenario is more likely* to happen in our lifetimes.
* - read: still never going to happen.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).
I was pro-copyright. Then I got offended by Youtube playing three (3) commercials before a video, and changed my mind, simply because they're greedy bastards at the RIAA that don't know when to quit.
I mentioned this, however, and Cramulus brayed laughter and mockery at me (Do never publicly change your mind here) to gloat, so I rethought it, and decided that I was right in the first place, and that a little inconvenience is part & parcel of copyright law.
So, yeah.
I have only skimmed through this thread. So I dunno exactly were everyone stands.
But here is my take on it anyway:
For music - I have downloaded a assload of music. Most of it is passable, but some of it is stuff I really fucking love. When I get my finances sorted out with a job and a place to stay and other such things, I am sending money off directly to artists I like. Some of them, like Nofx, I wil tell them what the money is actually for (they once released an album with "Steal this album" stickers on it. I think they'd understand). Others I would just send the money and let them figure it out themselves. Note that I'm not sending my money to EVERY artist, just the ones I respect and/or like. LMNO will also be receiving a small amount of money, about as much as I send to Bad Religion or Nofx or whoever. It's not a question of size or scale of the "theft" as it is one of how much pleasure I get and respect I have.
For academia and written work - In many cases, I won't have NEEDED to pay for these things. Dok Howl, Cain, RWHN and a whole slew of others don't demand payment to read their essays, although some could, I suppose, and I would pay for the privilege (see the MSY project). Here then, I can often ignore the question of money altogether, and then move on to the other intent of copyright: the protection of artists (or other creative types) and their vision or idea. Again, this comes down to respect for me. I wouldn't plagarise outright Dok Howls work, because I respect him. I will plagarise various different translations of The Bible and other religious works. The question here for me is HOW derivative does my work become as a consequence of being exposed to these ideas, and how much is that is due to outright theft of concepts or homage. Oh, and one thing about money for this: I fully intend to send some money to Faust on the regular for the upkeep of PD. The artists mentioned by name won't directly benefit, but there will be some compensation.
Basically, I go by gut feeling. I don't wory the ethics too much, I do what I think is right at any given time. And if I do something which is less-good at some point, I will try to rebalance it at a later time.
I have no intrinsic "right" to any of these things, and I want to be sure to let the creators know that I appreciate their efforts.
The music industry is like any other industry. It uses profits and proceeds for future production and business. Copyright is basically the music industry's loss prevention system. When you pirate instead of paying, you are cutting into that companies capacity for future production. In other words, recording and publishing new albums.
One of the biggest problems with these arguments is the trap that this thread fell into almost from the get go. One must remember there are varying levels of musicians and artists. So while you mockingly say "Oh no poor Snoop Dogg can't afford x", do not forget the small time rapper who is just getting off the ground. He needs record sales and paid-downloads so his label will finance a second album or single.
Believe it or not, it isn't exactly cheap to record music. I mean, yeah, anyone can buy $40 music editing software, but guess what, it's that whole "you get what you pay for" idea. In this case, you can hear loud and clear what you pay for. Compare one of my songs recorded on bargain-basement software compared to a Metallica album that used state-of-the-art Pro Tools software. (I'm talking sound quality, not song-writing quality). Not even in the same area code.
And one other thing I would throw out, is I think it is a big disingenuous to legitimize piracy by commenting on the music industry's supposed lack of willingness to adapt to new technologies. That's a bullshit argument because there are tons of legal ways people can download music. Amazon MP3 or ITunes anyone?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 17, 2010, 01:56:45 PM
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).
I was pro-copyright. Then I got offended by Youtube playing three (3) commercials before a video, and changed my mind, simply because they're greedy bastards at the RIAA that don't know when to quit.
I mentioned this, however, and Cramulus brayed laughter and mockery at me (Do never publicly change your mind here) to gloat, so I rethought it, and decided that I was right in the first place, and that a little inconvenience is part & parcel of copyright law.
So, yeah.
what? :?
this isn't the first time you've interpreted me joking around with you as mocking and gloating.
This is reminding me of you interpreting my reaction to the safari (a jocular "Beware! When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you") as disapproving of the idea.
it seems like when I'm joking, you often read me as being an asshole to you
I'll remember to keep my mouth shut next time
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 06:19:41 PM
The music industry is like any other industry. It uses profits and proceeds for future production and business. Copyright is basically the music industry's loss prevention system. When you pirate instead of paying, you are cutting into that companies capacity for future production. In other words, recording and publishing new albums.
One of the biggest problems with these arguments is the trap that this thread fell into almost from the get go. One must remember there are varying levels of musicians and artists. So while you mockingly say "Oh no poor Snoop Dogg can't afford x", do not forget the small time rapper who is just getting off the ground. He needs record sales and paid-downloads so his label will finance a second album or single.
Believe it or not, it isn't exactly cheap to record music. I mean, yeah, anyone can buy $40 music editing software, but guess what, it's that whole "you get what you pay for" idea. In this case, you can hear loud and clear what you pay for. Compare one of my songs recorded on bargain-basement software compared to a Metallica album that used state-of-the-art Pro Tools software. (I'm talking sound quality, not song-writing quality). Not even in the same area code.
And one other thing I would throw out, is I think it is a big disingenuous to legitimize piracy by commenting on the music industry's supposed lack of willingness to adapt to new technologies. That's a bullshit argument because there are tons of legal ways people can download music. Amazon MP3 or ITunes anyone?
I approve of this message.
Let's consider this, if we had those Star Trek replicator thingies, and could replicate physical products, would you guys still buy that used 1996 Ford Escort, or would you start pirating yourself some BMWs? Can we at least be a little honest and own up to some of the motivations in music piracy and not dress it up in this "ZOMG, It's all the Music Industry's fault!!!" get-up?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 08:12:22 PM
Let's consider this, if we had those Star Trek replicator thingies, and could replicate physical products, would you guys still buy that used 1996 Ford Escort, or would you start pirating yourself some BMWs? Can we at least be a little honest and own up to some of the motivations in music piracy and not dress it up in this "ZOMG, It's all the Music Industry's fault!!!" get-up?
Not paying for shit is morally acceptable when you're going up an evil giant corporation that, while evil and giant, serves a purpose to the individual artists.
So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question?
So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels?
Where is the cutoff point?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 08:26:01 PM
So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question?
So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels?
Where is the cutoff point?
I was hoping he was being sarcastic. :(
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 08:26:01 PM
So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question?
So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels?
Where is the cutoff point?
I'm agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the foolishness of pirating and saying it doesn't screw over artists.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 18, 2010, 08:30:10 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 08:26:01 PM
So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question?
So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels?
Where is the cutoff point?
I was hoping he was being sarcastic. :(
I am. Labels serve a purpose for the artist. I'd have no qualms about signing to a label. That's exactly what I want to do, since I'd rather be a career musician instead of an office monkey.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 08:12:22 PM
Let's consider this, if we had those Star Trek replicator thingies, and could replicate physical products, would you guys still buy that used 1996 Ford Escort, or would you start pirating yourself some BMWs? Can we at least be a little honest and own up to some of the motivations in music piracy and not dress it up in this "ZOMG, It's all the Music Industry's fault!!!" get-up?
I don't think anybody is saying that it's the music industry's fault that we've decided that taking shit for free is easier than paying for it, just that they're shooting themselves in the foot with their response to how things are in that regard. And the "music industry" comprises a whole lot more than the big 5 record companies and their subsidiary imprints, which is really all we're talking about here. I already stated that I thought they were obsolete as a business model and that it would make more sense for the recording industry to fracture into multiple recording/engineering companies and promotion companies (tour management could fall under this umbrella or become a 3rd aspect of the industry), with artists free to pick and choose between them as they see fit. If I'm a band, why should I (if I want to achieve any sort of meaningful success) be forced to get my recording, post-production, promotion, and tour management all from or through the same company?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 18, 2010, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 08:26:01 PM
So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question?
So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels?
Where is the cutoff point?
I'm agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the foolishness of pirating and saying it doesn't screw over artists.
It doesn't HAVE to screw over artists, though. The percentage of most recording artists' income that comes from album and song sales is negligible. That's how the record company makes their money, but the artists themselves make the vast majority of their money from touring and from merchandise sales. There are a whole lot of bands that I've payed to see live or bought a t-shirt from that I never even would have HEARD of if I hadn't stolen their music. So their label might be getting screwed by my thievery, but they are coming out ahead in the end.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 18, 2010, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 08:26:01 PM
So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question?
So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels?
Where is the cutoff point?
I'm agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the foolishness of pirating and saying it doesn't screw over artists.
Oh, okay. I guess I misunderstood.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 18, 2010, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 08:12:22 PM
Let's consider this, if we had those Star Trek replicator thingies, and could replicate physical products, would you guys still buy that used 1996 Ford Escort, or would you start pirating yourself some BMWs? Can we at least be a little honest and own up to some of the motivations in music piracy and not dress it up in this "ZOMG, It's all the Music Industry's fault!!!" get-up?
I don't think anybody is saying that it's the music industry's fault that we've decided that taking shit for free is easier than paying for it, just that they're shooting themselves in the foot with their response to how things are in that regard. And the "music industry" comprises a whole lot more than the big 5 record companies and their subsidiary imprints, which is really all we're talking about here. I already stated that I thought they were obsolete as a business model and that it would make more sense for the recording industry to fracture into multiple recording/engineering companies and promotion companies (tour management could fall under this umbrella or become a 3rd aspect of the industry), with artists free to pick and choose between them as they see fit. If I'm a band, why should I (if I want to achieve any sort of meaningful success) be forced to get my recording, post-production, promotion, and tour management all from or through the same company?
Agents are separate from the labels. Also Event promoters are. When a group goes on a tour, it's the groups dime mostly.
OK, can we take morality out of this for a second?
I know it seems crazy, but I AM NOT IN ANY WAY TRYING TO MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT FOR STEALING - oh, this is just big writing for ease of access, not shouting.
part two: I AM NOT STUPID.
I'm not trying to say that piracy SHOULD happen, nor am I trying to justify piracy. There is no reason that I pirate(d)* music beyond not being able to afford all the music I want to listen to.
*see THIS THREAD (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26875.0), I am also subscribed to Spotify, which is a legitimate source of lots of music that I want to listen to (I also fully endorse its direction).
HERE IS WHAT I AM ACTUALLY TRYING TO SAY:
Music piracy DOES HAPPEN, and there is very little that seems to be able to change that, beyond you know... EXPLODING THE INTERNET. What I am saying is simply fucking BUSINESS. That is, that the "labels", or as I believe, independent artists who are going to be most successful and important to the industry in the future are the people who MAKE PIRACY AN OPPORTUNITY.
Hey, that's a pretty good slogan. Maybe I can market that to some record labels ;)
x
edd
Meh, don't bother. Some people won't want to see any deeper into the issue than "LOL PIRACY IS TEH BAD!!!!"
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 18, 2010, 11:24:41 PM
Meh, don't bother. Some people won't want to see any deeper into the issue than "LOL PIRACY IS TEH BAD!!!!"
Pick me please.
I don't know what that means in the context of this thread.
Piracy is theft, plain and simple.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 18, 2010, 11:24:41 PM
Meh, don't bother. Some people won't want to see any deeper into the issue than "LOL PIRACY IS TEH BAD!!!!"
I started looking at it differently, and Cram got all over my shit.
Rather than deal with his gloating, I've gone back to a black & white view on the subject. Piracy is stealing, as far as I'm concerned.
yeah, nobody is arguing anything that contradicts that.
In fact, this entire discussion has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO WITH WHETHER PIRACY IS RIGHT OR WRONG OR FUCK IT YOU GUYS ARE TOO FUCKING OBTUSE FOR ME TONIGHT.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 19, 2010, 12:29:31 AM
yeah, nobody is arguing anything that contradicts that.
Not in this thread, anyway. :lulz:
But as surely as the sun will rise, SOMEONE will bring up the "It's not stealing, it's copying" argument. There are 3 subjects that should result in a beating for the OP...Piracy, Libertarianism, and Magickue.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 18, 2010, 07:03:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 17, 2010, 01:56:45 PM
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).
I was pro-copyright. Then I got offended by Youtube playing three (3) commercials before a video, and changed my mind, simply because they're greedy bastards at the RIAA that don't know when to quit.
I mentioned this, however, and Cramulus brayed laughter and mockery at me (Do never publicly change your mind here) to gloat, so I rethought it, and decided that I was right in the first place, and that a little inconvenience is part & parcel of copyright law.
So, yeah.
what? :?
this isn't the first time you've interpreted me joking around with you as mocking and gloating.
This is reminding me of you interpreting my reaction to the safari (a jocular "Beware! When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you") as disapproving of the idea.
it seems like when I'm joking, you often read me as being an asshole to you
I'll remember to keep my mouth shut next time
I was talking about this: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26381.30
Either I'm more paranoid that usual these days, or I'm more paranoid than usual.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 19, 2010, 12:30:12 AM
In fact, this entire discussion has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO WITH WHETHER PIRACY IS RIGHT OR WRONG OR FUCK IT YOU GUYS ARE TOO FUCKING OBTUSE FOR ME TONIGHT.
Pardon my fog. :lulz:
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 18, 2010, 11:24:41 PM
Meh, don't bother. Some people won't want to see any deeper into the issue than "LOL PIRACY IS TEH BAD!!!!"
Unfortunately I'm a hopeless optimist ;)
So anyway, I've been mulling over some ideas for a while, and this one just struck me, half-formed, but not perhaps with promise:
There are a few caveats to begin with: The first the artist that might try this would require some kind of following to start with, have a good friends with a decent home recording studio, or have saved enough to get recording done well through other means, and have realistic and plausible profit projections, the plan is thus:
Our plucky <independent artist/label> has got their debut album recorded, and a small army of fans hungry to hear it, how do they release it, I hear you cry? With a kickstarter style donations setup, where the album is released
for free, once a certain limit has been reached (donations still welcome though), with bonus extras doled out for people who donated more money. The limit would probably be somewhere slightly above the production cost, which with a bit of hard-work and nepotism can be pretty low ($3300 anyone? (http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/1148562022/crowd-funding-yes-it-actually-fucking-works-really)).
Just thoughts,
Edd
p.s. Amanda Palmer is a fucking hero of artist independence and self-promotion.
No comment.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 19, 2010, 01:10:34 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 19, 2010, 12:57:23 AM
No comment.
:?
*sigh*
One success story of self promotion out of how many failed self promotion stories?
I am backing out of this conversation.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 19, 2010, 01:15:35 AM
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 19, 2010, 01:10:34 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 19, 2010, 12:57:23 AM
No comment.
:?
*sigh*
One success story of self promotion out of how many failed self promotion stories?
I am backing out of this conversation.
same can be said of major label "success stories", more than 4/5 new acts on a label end up as failed stories.
Secondly, I only used that as an example to show that stuff like that
can be done, and I only used words like
independent artist/label and
self-promotion because (no prizes for guessing this one), I don't like record labels :)
But i get it if you don't wanna bother with this discussion, not everyone is as into this kinda thinking as me
x
edd
No hard feelings I hope, but I've seen this puppy chase his tail before.
none at all
x
edd
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2010, 12:33:39 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 18, 2010, 07:03:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 17, 2010, 01:56:45 PM
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).
I was pro-copyright. Then I got offended by Youtube playing three (3) commercials before a video, and changed my mind, simply because they're greedy bastards at the RIAA that don't know when to quit.
I mentioned this, however, and Cramulus brayed laughter and mockery at me (Do never publicly change your mind here) to gloat, so I rethought it, and decided that I was right in the first place, and that a little inconvenience is part & parcel of copyright law.
So, yeah.
what? :?
this isn't the first time you've interpreted me joking around with you as mocking and gloating.
This is reminding me of you interpreting my reaction to the safari (a jocular "Beware! When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you") as disapproving of the idea.
it seems like when I'm joking, you often read me as being an asshole to you
I'll remember to keep my mouth shut next time
I was talking about this: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26381.30
Either I'm more paranoid that usual these days, or I'm more paranoid than usual.
yes you're being paranoid
being that my previous post on the matter was--
Quote from: Cramulus on October 06, 2010, 06:08:46 PM
ARRRRGHHH ALL ABOARD YE LANDLUBBIN' COPYWRITE RESPECTIN' FELCH SWAB
LET'S WATCH GROW GNARLY PIRATE BEARDS AND WATCH SAVED BY THE BELL
--I thought it would be apparent that I was uhhh being flippant and joking around? but I guess calling you an anarchist, even in the context of silly over-the-top capslock hyperbole, is serious business.
"braying and gloating"
give me a break
man, it freaks me out to joke around with you because you tend to read all this venom in my posts - venom which isn't coming from me. Feel like I have to walk on egg shells because shit, who knows what's going to set you off.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 19, 2010, 01:58:50 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2010, 12:33:39 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 18, 2010, 07:03:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 17, 2010, 01:56:45 PM
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 16, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).
I was pro-copyright. Then I got offended by Youtube playing three (3) commercials before a video, and changed my mind, simply because they're greedy bastards at the RIAA that don't know when to quit.
I mentioned this, however, and Cramulus brayed laughter and mockery at me (Do never publicly change your mind here) to gloat, so I rethought it, and decided that I was right in the first place, and that a little inconvenience is part & parcel of copyright law.
So, yeah.
what? :?
this isn't the first time you've interpreted me joking around with you as mocking and gloating.
This is reminding me of you interpreting my reaction to the safari (a jocular "Beware! When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you") as disapproving of the idea.
it seems like when I'm joking, you often read me as being an asshole to you
I'll remember to keep my mouth shut next time
I was talking about this: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26381.30
Either I'm more paranoid that usual these days, or I'm more paranoid than usual.
yes you're being paranoid
being that my previous post on the matter was--
Quote from: Cramulus on October 06, 2010, 06:08:46 PM
ARRRRGHHH ALL ABOARD YE LANDLUBBIN' COPYWRITE RESPECTIN' FELCH SWAB
LET'S WATCH GROW GNARLY PIRATE BEARDS AND WATCH SAVED BY THE BELL
--I thought it would be apparent that I was uhhh being flippant and joking around? but I guess calling you an anarchist, even in the context of silly over-the-top capslock hyperbole, is serious business.
"braying and gloating"
give me a break
man, it freaks me out to joke around with you because you tend to read all this venom in my posts - venom which isn't coming from me. Feel like I have to walk on egg shells because shit, who knows what's going to set you off.
Sorry about that. I'm not sure what sets me off these days, either.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 18, 2010, 06:19:41 PM
The music industry is like any other industry. It uses profits and proceeds for future production and business. Copyright is basically the music industry's loss prevention system. When you pirate instead of paying, you are cutting into that companies capacity for future production. In other words, recording and publishing new albums.
One of the biggest problems with these arguments is the trap that this thread fell into almost from the get go. One must remember there are varying levels of musicians and artists. So while you mockingly say "Oh no poor Snoop Dogg can't afford x", do not forget the small time rapper who is just getting off the ground. He needs record sales and paid-downloads so his label will finance a second album or single.
Believe it or not, it isn't exactly cheap to record music. I mean, yeah, anyone can buy $40 music editing software, but guess what, it's that whole "you get what you pay for" idea. In this case, you can hear loud and clear what you pay for. Compare one of my songs recorded on bargain-basement software compared to a Metallica album that used state-of-the-art Pro Tools software. (I'm talking sound quality, not song-writing quality). Not even in the same area code.
And one other thing I would throw out, is I think it is a big disingenuous to legitimize piracy by commenting on the music industry's supposed lack of willingness to adapt to new technologies. That's a bullshit argument because there are tons of legal ways people can download music. Amazon MP3 or ITunes anyone?
The record labels don't pay for the recording costs, the artists do, its a big part of why artists make so little money off music sales, since in addition to getting the tiniest part of the profit, most of their take goes back to the labels as debt.
The real threats to the music industry come from added competition in the entertainment market, and social changes in what music is acceptable for youngsters to listen to, in older generations it was never acceptable to dig through your parents music collection for your tunes, that changing is a *massive* blow to an industry that was built on teenagers. Piracy is insignificant compared to video games or kids getting music out of their parents CD collection.
The music industry is also the *least* fucked up of the various copyright dependent industries (though not from lack of trying), cut them some slack on the piracy department, the copyrights of the consumer actually exist there, unlike in movies or software, so we should respect theirs.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 19, 2010, 12:54:52 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 18, 2010, 11:24:41 PM
Meh, don't bother. Some people won't want to see any deeper into the issue than "LOL PIRACY IS TEH BAD!!!!"
Unfortunately I'm a hopeless optimist ;)
So anyway, I've been mulling over some ideas for a while, and this one just struck me, half-formed, but not perhaps with promise:
There are a few caveats to begin with: The first the artist that might try this would require some kind of following to start with, have a good friends with a decent home recording studio, or have saved enough to get recording done well through other means, and have realistic and plausible profit projections, the plan is thus:
Our plucky <independent artist/label> has got their debut album recorded, and a small army of fans hungry to hear it, how do they release it, I hear you cry? With a kickstarter style donations setup, where the album is released for free, once a certain limit has been reached (donations still welcome though), with bonus extras doled out for people who donated more money. The limit would probably be somewhere slightly above the production cost, which with a bit of hard-work and nepotism can be pretty low ($3300 anyone? (http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/1148562022/crowd-funding-yes-it-actually-fucking-works-really)).
Just thoughts,
Edd
p.s. Amanda Palmer is a fucking hero of artist independence and self-promotion.
I saw on the bottom there that it was funded through Kickstarter, but there's a number of those in place. Indie-Go-Go is an exciting one.
Charlie has points, but there's also a need to recognise that commercial success of any sort is largely luck. Self promotion will become a larger and larger part of commercial music success. As yet though, it's ture that I haven't heard of anyone doing this successfully when they haven't already had a label back them (that said, the choice to say 'no' to a lable and continue self promotion may still be becoming more pragmatic).
Also this link is EXTREMELY relevent;http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html. It discusses FARTS, the term it uses to describe 'Forced Artificial Scarcity', that essentially artistic industries are in the position where one of there main jobs is to create/simulate a scarcity of things that can realistically spread and duplicate instantly.
I have no idea how to feel about all this.
On one hand, our EP is going to end up costing us about $1,500. Probably more. It would really be nice if we could somehow make that money back. But we won't. We'll be giving these things away, most likely.
On the other hand, my default behavior when I hear a snippet of music I like is to see if there's a torrent.
Third hands in the ring, at this point I'm more interested in having a lot of people know about my music for free rather than a small amount of people deciding it's worth it to cough up some marginally small amount of cash that won't even begin to cover recording, production, and rehearsal space rent.
Yeah. It's $1500 divided over how many people?
Thing is, it's not your job to record that EP, you're in a band, not in an EP-making company. If you were, you guys wouldn't have started playing music, going along, see where it ends up, and what do you know, an EP comes out. You did that for FUN, not profit. If you had set out with profit as a goal, well, you'd have made a business plan first, see how much you need to invest, or even get investors, and write up a plan on how you're going to get that money back, with profit. There's probably a whole lot of different ways to accomplish that, but it's very likely that the actual music you'd produce would have turned out a whole lot different than it does now. And you might have had have less FUN making it too, keeping an eye on the profit margins.
BTW this is not supposed to be an argument for or against copyrights (I'm a bit done with that discussion, having heard most of the points several times now), rather just some random thoughts on what LMNO just said.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on October 25, 2010, 07:05:09 PM
I have no idea how to feel about all this.
On one hand, our EP is going to end up costing us about $1,500. Probably more. It would really be nice if we could somehow make that money back. But we won't. We'll be giving these things away, most likely.
On the other hand, my default behavior when I hear a snippet of music I like is to see if there's a torrent.
Third hands in the ring, at this point I'm more interested in having a lot of people know about my music for free rather than a small amount of people deciding it's worth it to cough up some marginally small amount of cash that won't even begin to cover recording, production, and rehearsal space rent.
Richard knows what he's doing though, so it's going to come out sounding really good. His prices aren't bad for the quality.
As for making the money back, you probably won't for any first pressing, but you could work out the price of the EP in such away that you make a good portion of it back, and recycle some of that money into a second pressing for further sales. Might take awhile, but it is possible to eventually break even. Maybe if you sell the CD at $5 a piece? I'd buy one.