Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship
from the an-artist's-perspective dept
Yesterday, we wrote about El-P (emcee/producer and co-founder of Definitive Jux records) and his positive reaction to the early leak of his upcoming album, Cancer4Cure. El-P showed up in the comments that evening, and after an email exchange this morning he posted this excellent longer reply and invited us to turn it into a guest post. Big thanks to El for getting involved and giving us a clearer picture of his stance on these issues.
First off, thanks to Leigh for emailing me today and thanks to everyone here for your ideas and comments. It's clear he (and all of you) care about this subject. The truth is I really don't fully know how I feel about it all and I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to fully tackle the subject. It's tricky.
All I know is that I believe in operating within the realties that exist now and treating fans with respect within the context of those realties. I don't agree with the draconian and aggressive manner in which the RIAA and others have reacted to those realities and I wont be caught trying to put band aids on cracks in the dam. I'd rather let that bitch flood and build a boat. That said, I cringe a bit when people disregard how tough it is for working musicians to deal with the new paradigm. Cut us some slack. It's all relatively new and we are trying our best to navigate choppy waters.
I want to trust that if people like my music they will support me. My heart tells me that's the case. I also know for a fact that many of the people that say they will support or even genuinely intend to may not, being that they have the finished product (or at least the most important piece of it) in their hands already. It's just common sense.
So how do I feel? What's the right way? Fuck if I know. But I'll adapt and I'll do it with respect and class and not kicking and screaming. There's a hell of a lot I could say about both sides of this particular subject, but honestly does it matter? You all have formed your opinions on it already and in the end people like me are still out here trying to make a living no matter what those opinions are... right, wrong or in-between.
I will say (and this is a portion of what I wrote to Leigh today):
In these debates (no matter what venue) the artist almost always seems to be treated/viewed as a child. Either we don't understand what's good for us, can't control what's happening to us, can't comprehend what's bad for us or we are not wise enough to be grateful for what we are handed. It's a debate that rages on almost exclusively without the input of the artist themselves.
And maybe thats how it needs to be. At the end of the day we are trying to make a living doing what we love and it's on us to determine how we handle it. I'm not sure any artist owes any explanation to anyone about the nuances of that, and I'm not sure anyone else can really understand what it's like as an artist to negotiate all this unless they deal with it in the same way. Everything takes on a different tone when paying your rent enters in to the debate. But don't make the mistake of treating us condescendingly or with pity. I am not "begging" for anything by asking people to support by pre-ordering if they enjoy the record. I'm trying to solidify and encourage the relationship I have with the people who I make the music for in the context of today's reality. Simple as that.
I for one am determined to make the realities of today's music business work for me as best I can. I do not see the point in blaming the fans for a technological (and now cultural) reality that we all are involved in. They are my fans. They are my supporters. I think if I do my job and make something passionate and good then they'll be motivated to engage with me. Between me and them I'm sure we can figure out how to give each other what we need so we can continue to have a relationship. I'm not too worried about it.
For now I think we are finally settling in to a decent place with it all. Of course if my record drops and I don't sell shit I might end up with a bit of a different take on it all. I reserve that right, but I doubt it.
Anyway thanks for reading and thanks for taking the time to talk about all this. I'm going to drink some coffee and eat a bagel now. Also, my cat won't stop meowing.
— best, el
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cancer4cure, el-p
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I understand your desire to be reasonable, to be fair, to want to focus on making the best music possible and getting paid for the consumption of that work and labor. but it's not gonna happen.
haters are gonna hate and thieves are gonna steal. but what's worse is that this isn't about downloaders, it's about the internet and tech corporate fat cats getting rich of your work (like google aint got enough dough, right?), and the pirate bay, and those cats...
so good luck to you man, but you look like road kill on the information superhighway to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. He was short, sweet, and right to the heart of the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nice rant, but you're totally wrong. The "tech corporate fat cats" treat artists 100x better than record labels ever did, which is why the labels are running scared.
El-P, I'm glad you stopped by. Artists' voices are always welcome here. But please do not listen to idiot shills like this guy, for everyone's sake (especially yours).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Puuurleeese.
Keep dreaming.
Spotify pays artists way less than any label ever did.
You think I'm grateful to Google who post links to my work on pirate sites, then make some money from advertising off my loss.
Wake up and smell the coffee dude.
By the way, I'm an artist so thanks for the welcome invite to have my voice heard here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spotify isn't a label. However, I *did* just see the details of a study done by someone *inside* the recording industry, showing that Spotify actually pays *significantly more than radio* when you compare on a per-play basis. And considering that's what Spotify is really replacing, the evidence certainly suggests Spotify pays quite well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pandora = Radio. Spotify = Retail Subscription. Pandora = Win. Spotify = Fail.
Spotify is a disaster for artists, which is why many of them are leaving the service. Spotify in a panic is now launching a Pandora like service so that 1) no one can opt out (due to it being like radio and not retail) and 2) so they can grow a subscriber base to (hopefully) migrate to the on demand (not radio) service.
Pitching Spotify's on demand service as a replacement for radio is an outright lie. Terrestrial radio is still the #1 driver for music sales. Spotify cannibalizes music sales.
You really need to educate yourself. Actually I'm sure you already know all this, it's just in your interest to not tell the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you capable of presenting an argument without strawmen, misdirections and outright lies? Can you even keep up the same argument without moving goalposts every time you're shown to be wrong? It really doesn't look like it to me...
"Pitching Spotify's on demand service as a replacement for radio is an outright lie. "
No, it's not. That's what I use it for, and I suspect a great many other people as well. For many people, it's also a replacement for PIRACY (it's usually far quicker and easier to stream a Spotify album than download a torrent of the album). That means people who would normally pirate actually pay for their content. Why do you oppose this?
"Spotify is a disaster for artists"
Citation needed. A few indie labels leaving doesn't prove this, especially since most of those labels seem to have had the same panics over other services (e.g. eMusic).
At least provide a citation for how artists (not labels) get less from Spotify than they did from labels, because all the figures I've seen suggest the opposite...
"Spotify in a panic is now launching a Pandora like service"
Huh? Sorry if I'm not sure what the hell you're blathering on about here, not least because unlike Pandora, I'm actually permitted to use Spotify. Care to explain?
"Terrestrial radio is still the #1 driver for music sales."
Citation needed.
"Spotify cannibalizes music sales. "
Citation needed.
"You really need to educate yourself."
Oh yes, everybody else is wrong apart from you, yet you fail to present even a shred of proof for your own claims. I wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The last word there should have been radio stations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
pretty much everything you've posted is dead wrong, but here's one biggie...
"Terrestrial radio is still the #1 driver for music sales."
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/12/active-vs-passive-fans-why-radio-tv-still-rank-tops- for-music-discovery-best-of-hypebot.html
Spotify is NOTHING like radio. Radio sells records, Spotify cannibalizes sales.
http://www.tested.com/news/news/3194-music-distributor-pulls-200-small-labels-from-spotify-and-r dio/
"A recent study conducted by NPD Group and NARM found that streaming music services like Spotify and Rdio are detrimental to the sales of individual pieces of music. "
http://digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120207mccartney
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/p ermalink/2012/120113vanhalen
http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2011-12-13/the-black-keys-discuss-the ir-controversial-spotify-decision/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't know for who, because it certainly isn't where I discover anything.
Now about Spotify, you crazy person the study apparently is saying all streaming services are bad for musicians and so is Pandora since it is a streaming service, what an idiot you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Active vs Passive
I am doubting that the study is as nuanced as need be. In it, it says that 80% of the people considered active find new music from people they're fans of. This begs the question of how does a respondent become a fan via the study? I doubt they've asked that question but maybe you can point to the answer for me.
Spotify is NOTHING like radio. Radio sells records, Spotify cannibalizes sales.
What's amazing is how you've stated this assertion but can't notice what has occurred in the interim. Spotify is its own platform. And seeing as Mike already posted about how they're making more money, they don't seem to be cannibalizing sales, they're just learning how to make better toys for artists.
A recent study conducted by NPD Group and NARM found that streaming music services like Spotify and Rdio are detrimental to the sales of individual pieces of music.
Key caveat. Individual, as in singular. Such as CDs and tapes. The unbundling of the CD has been going strong since that Napster days.
But still, just this one aspect may be occurring but that doesn't mean artists aren't making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? Me asking for citations and giving an example of my own personal Spotify usage to back me up? Which claims exactly are delusional?
Reality = delusion to you it seems, explains a lot, but at least you've provided multiple citations instead of just the insults this time. Let's have a look...
Hypebot link: some commentary on a study (which I don't seem to be able to access with paying for it). The NPD link itself says the following:
"AM/FM radio and family/friends/coworkers are the most common avenues for discovery, and discovery via online radio and Web videos were also important for the most active music fans. "
So, while they're still the major drivers, but are being complemented and/or replaced by other media. So, while what you say is technically true - for how long? It also doesn't address Spotify specifically, and doesn't mention the scope of the study. I'd assume US only from how it's discussed, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt, especially since Spotify would have been available for less than 4 months in the US before the study was published.
Realistic conclusion: doesn't say a damn thing about Spotify, and you're an asshole for calling me a liar when I related my own usage of the service. I'd expect the next study to find major changes since Spotify became mainstream in the US and beyond.
Tested.com link: says exactly what I asked you not to use as a crutch (some labels, mostly affiliated with each other have pulled out). It's an opinion piece on the news that some labels pulled out, but doesn't address anything I asked you to cite. Some LABELS are unhappy with Spotify (and Rdio)'s rates. That doesn't mean that ARTISTS (as per your initial claim) are suffering. It also doesn't prove a damn thing about your claim that Spotify cannibalises sales other than that some legacy players are scared of that. Well, duh....
Realistic conclusion: you've got nothing.
..and oh dear, the last bunch of idiocy:
1st link - says nothing about why the albums were pulled. Also states "That of course encompasses Spotify, though a representative emailed Digital Music News on Wednesday morning to clarify that removals on Spotify actually happened in 2010.", when Spotify was a hell of a lot smaller than it is now.
2nd link - Has sod all to do with whether sales are being affected, as it notes that an exclusive period had ended with iTunes and that was causing the delay. Also states "The label screwed up". Also ends with this: "Updated, Saturday, 4:15 pm PCT: The track has now been reinstated on Spotify.". Also states that Amazon sales were affected by the same action. Is this what you consider evidence of your claims, because it actually states the exact opposite?
3rd link: An opinion from a band, so nothing binding and nothing to show which data they're basing this on. There's more there than in your other links, but this an opinion, and realistically means nothing more than the opinions of those who are there and happy with the service without additional data.
Realistic conclusion - you're talking out of your ass again. You provided 2 links that have nothing to do with what you were claiming, and one that's an opinion at best.
Do you have any REAL DATA to back your assertions up? Thought not... back to our regularly scheduled service where AC pretends that Spotify is a record label and personally attacks those who point out he's wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
citations please.
again:
"Terrestrial radio is still the #1 driver for music sales."
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/12/active-vs-passive-fans-why-radio-tv-still-rank-tops- for-music-discovery-best-of-hypebot.html
Spotify is NOTHING like radio. Radio sells records, Spotify cannibalizes sales.
http://www.tested.com/news/news/3194-music-distributor-pulls-200-small-labels-from-spotify -and-r dio/
"A recent study conducted by NPD Group and NARM found that streaming music services like Spotify and Rdio are detrimental to the sales of individual pieces of music. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
None as detrimental as quality and obscurity.
And you don't graduate from obscurity with the help of terrestrial radio, playing pre-approved play-lists (supported via payola).
BTW, citing two articles, one which refers to the second as the source of information, really doesn't count as two separate points.
That's the same as "John says Elvis is alive" and "Chris says John says Elvis is alive" counting as two separate sources, which they do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"the Spotify model is adding, and will continue to add, huge value to the music industry. Right now we have already convinced millions of consumers to pay for music again, to move away from downloading illegally and therefore generate real revenue for the music business.
In addition, �revenue per stream� totally misses the point when considering the value generated by Spotify. The relevant metrics are: 1) how many people are being monetized by Spotify; 2) who these people are (usually young people previously on pirate services which generate nothing for artists and rightsholders); and 3) how much revenue per user Spotify generates for rightsholders."
We can all quote shit its fun isn't it?
"Home Taping Is Killing Music" Look I qouted someone saying radio would be the death of music. I guess that means its true right?
"Phonographs and Player Pianos Will Kill Music!"
The sky, the sky is falling!
As far as your love of terrestrial radio, did you actually read the study, or even the press release? https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/pressreleases/pr_111110
It doesn't paint the picture you think it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The larger groups who get their "new" music from radio, don't buy much music and prefer "new" music from familiar bands. You are talking about old people who find out on the radio that one of the three artists they still listen to released a new album.
The smaller groups spend the majority of the money. And they do their discovery on new media. But hey skew the data and try to make it look like the sky is green and your ass is clean. Maybe you'll even buy your own bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No you posted bad interpretations of real data. Try reading the real data and/or posting it. You will find your weak argument is even weaker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"[The reason] why this is so debated is that is it is a perceptional issue," added Edgar Berger, president and CEO, international, Sony Music Entertainment, who also spoke at the Digital Music Report launch. "Obviously, for streaming you get way less then you get for a download, but it streams so often and for such a long period then in the long run actually the money might be higher and it's incremental."
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/rob-wells-universal-music-s-g lobal-digital-1005968752.story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Spotify is NOTHING like radio. Radio sells records, Spotify cannibalizes sales."
Unproven, and my personal experiences prove you a liar. If you think you have data that alters this, cite it. DATA not summaries on whatever random site you dredged up on Google, not "oh I know someone else who uses it differently". Evidence.
""A recent study conducted by NPD Group and NARM found that streaming music services like Spotify and Rdio are detrimental to the sales of individual pieces of music. "
A study which, conveniently, is unavailable to support these claims without payment. Especially if it only covers the US market, where Spotify could hardly have been available for more than a month or 2 before the study was undertaken - and so any such study would be questionable with regards to Spotify's effect..
Also a claim which is NOT stated on the actual NPD site (in fact, Spotify's name doesn't even get mentioned). The above you posted is an opinion of a blogger, and only present in the headline. Spotify is not mentioned anywhere else on that page.
Again, if you have more information (preferably a full copy of the study itself), cite it.
Also, stop posting back to others' opinion blogs as evidence. Isn't that what you attack people here for when they link to Mike's previous articles? I suggest you start by reading beyond the headlines in stories, preferably looking at the linked primary sources as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where are the contracts from The Pirate Bay that pay artists any money?
citation please.
here's the score:
The Pirate Bay = 100% of the Artists Money
Artists on Pirate Bay = 0% of the Artists Money
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you can tell me where I mentioned TPB in all this? What any of your rant has anything to do with what I posted? Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where are the contracts from The Pirate Bay that pay artists any money?
Um, buddy. You have said "where are the contracts from The Pirate Bay that pay artists any money" about fifty times, over and over and over, in this thread - and you're accusing him of talking in circles?
You gotta get over it dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
/facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ok, now that we're clear, show me where mike and leigh say they don't support the pirate bay ripping off artists ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
who is david lowery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it appears there's nothing you can say changes the fact that you are supporting artists being ripped off by the pirate bay. can you show me when the pirate bay has paid artists?
just tell me why your solution to one injustice (labels) is an even greater injustice (piracy).
go ahead, you seem to be speechless when actually having to use logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, seriously? We all can see that you're the same idiot who's already vomited nonsense all over this thread. For fuck's sake, you even have the same gravitar.
By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
even google's own chief economist hal a varian thinks you guys and john perry barlow are full of BS...
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/effs-john-perry-barlow-is-wrong/
welcome to the exploitation economy, tech is ripping off artists WORSE than any label ever did... how is that progress? you are sending artists BACKWARDS 50 years... T-shirt and Touring is an ADMISSION OF FAILURE TO INNOVATE by the tech community that is no sustainable revenue for artists online.
illegally exploiting artists is an OLD MODEL indeed... digital dinosaurs carry on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you ignore that multiple people answered the question by explaining to you why it's a "and when did you stop beating your wife" type question.
The fact that you've failed to respond to any of the multiple people who have pointed this out shows that you're not here to engage in any sort of real debate.
At least we know that you haven't stopped beating your wife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
spotify is on demand. spotify does not sell records.
also, there's no "discovery" on spotify. radio exposed artists, but people go to spotify to hear what they already know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
radio wasn't on demand. Right like I said services evolve.
spotify does not sell records. My credit card statements say otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I even imported a few pieces from the EU because nobody sold them on this side of the pond.
I also know many people who use "internet radio" or "streaming music" services and just set it to random so they can hear new stuff, one of my friends has bought thousands of songs thanks to services like slacker radio and spotify....
Your lies also suggest you cant find new music via torrents, and funny enough, I have found alot of what I have bought over the years via torrents as well, because I was able to find it free at good quality and try it....
to this day, I will que up some random stuff thats popular and give it a listen, if I like it, I buy it(on cd, never buy mp3's or aac files, quality sucks compared to a good flac rip.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That argument is absolutely bogus. What we are seeing is that all these new services and new subscription packages are exploding without compromising or cannibalizing other revenue streams."
Who was it that said that? Some freetard pirate who wants to do nothing but rip artists off?
It was Rob Wells, president of Universal Music Group's global digital business sector.
...So, maybe the answer is "yes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh that is right you can't do it, you depend on others and you don't want to pay them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the record label take a cut of the revenue spotify pays. Hijacking most of the money that should go to the artist.
Drop the record companies from the equation and spotify pays way more then the record labels for the same licensed rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/streaming-price-index-123111/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly ZERO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Drop the record companies from the equation and spotify pays way more then the record labels for the same licensed rights.
amazing that he can't read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's radio, but it's not replacing radio, even though it's radio. Your call to educate ones self seems misguided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much do Wal Mart, Sirius and ClearChannel pay them? You may as well start comparing apples to apples. Spotify are not, nor have ever claimed to be, a record label.
"You think I'm grateful to Google who post links to my work on pirate sites, then make some money from advertising off my loss."
I'm sure they also point to the legal retailers selling your stuff as well, Do you also hate them for that, or are you sulking because you don't think legal retailers pay you enough? Judging by your level of business sense and maturity displayed here, you've probably boycotted all legal retailers then whine when your music doesn't sell. Hell, you don't even know the difference between a record label and a radio station, so your business credentials are rather suspect...
"By the way, I'm an artist"
As ever, citation needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you are AC, and that reply was to freaky, why would you think the response was a welcome to you?
The labels well documented abuse of artists should be undeniable at this point.
Hating on Google? Really? A search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
tell you what, when google starts sharing the ad revenue with the artists they are monetizing advertising against on pirate sites you'll have a point, until than you have the usual BS.
let's just see how fair these artists contracts are from the pirate bay? Oh, what's that? The pirate bay does not give artists contracts or payments? FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, why should Google has to pay anything to you then?
They don't use anything from you, their job is to index the web and they do that and you want a cut?
That is why don't feel sorry for you people.
Pirates should take it all and give nothing because you guys are not worth anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Google offers lots of ways for artists to share ad revenue. Make a video of your song and put it on Youtube, and you can share ad revenue. It's pretty simple, and doesn't require any middleman recording industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blood sucking leech that is what you are.
The Pirate Bay is not a label either so why should they have the need for a contract, further since they are not the ones doing the sharing why are they responsible? because they didn't block something you wanted it censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
your right the pirate bay is not a record label. record labels PAY artists. the pirate bay keeps 100% of the money for themselves. uh, yeah, that's fair. 100% Greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Pirate Bay does not exploit the artists, users do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ask Dan Bull
lot of people bought is stuff because they found it on the pirate bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha! Now they've jumped the shark!
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/smells-like-pirate-desperation/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" In an investigation in 2006, the police concluded that The Pirate Bay brings in 1.2 million SEK (US$168,885.60) per year from advertisements.[39] The prosecution estimated in the 2009 trial from emails and screenshots that the advertisements pay over 10 million SEK (US$1.40738M) a year,[40] but in the indictment used the estimate from the police investigation.[41] The lawyers of the site's administrators counted the 2006 revenue closer to 725,000 SEK (US$102,035.05).[42] The verdict of the trial however quoted the estimate from the preliminary investigation.[43]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay
I don't think you realize that by lying you're not convincing anyone otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, if you are not popular they just ignore you and keep your money.
The labels are one side of a criminal spectrum, the other side being piracy.
You apprently don't understand that or else you would stop advocating support of a greedy business entity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Citation needed)
Ohhh wait, ac trolls don't need to provide evidence to their claims or address any points like why they still support labels that steal less of the artists money then pirate bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As multiple people have explained to you in this thread, we don't believe that the Pirate Bay is ripping off artists - or at least that it's not as simple as that, given that the Pirate Bay doesn't host any content and it's users doing all the copying.
You can't ask me if I support something that I don't believe is true. Your argument appears to be fashioned after a 10-year-old's insult: "Duhh, do your parents know you're gay? Yes or no!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
citation please.
and so you support that. I support the artists getting paid.
I know you couldn't say it. I knew you supported the pirate bay ripping off artists. why do you hate artists so much?
you don't think the pirate bay is ripping off artists? not after losing lawsuits? not when it is obvious?
you think it's ok that the pirate bay makes money by exploiting artists illegally. wow, just wow.
you are too funny... single word thread... gotchya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
anyway, we've already rejected your braindead definition of "ripping off" so sorry, you have still failed to make any kind of point whatsoever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this is my first post today, so I don't know what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If not paying artists is the same as ripping them off, then 99.99% of America is ripping me off.
Obviously it doesn't work that way. If one of my albums is shared on The Pirate Bay, then my bank account isn't any lighter because of it.
And, no, The Pirate Bay is not ripping anyone off, because they don't offer, nor make money off of, anyone's content. They make money off of advertising to users, and those users share content, but that's not the same thing. The users are (mostly) not trying to rip anyone off; they're fans who like sharing music. The Pirate Bay is the place where they go to do it.
I'm not saying The Pirate Bay is hunky-dory for all musicians, but they're clearly not the bugaboo the record industry says they are. And, if you're an up-and-coming artist, you can certainly use them (for free!) to get more popular, and make more money. Many have.
this is my first post today
You know, there are these things called "Gravatars." Because of them, we can tell that you're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and I can tell you are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
normally I wouldn't bother clarifying that because I would trust a person to be able to figure it out, but you've got that brain-in-David-Lowery's-fridge problem i mentioned so i figure, better safe than sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How did The Pirate Bay get the artists' money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you can stop the pirate bay from pirating your stuff by going after the original seeders
no original seeder no one pirating your stuff period.
Why do you want to take away the CHOICE from all the people who want to use that model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And he did it without being approved for the pirate bay promo
he just pirated his own books on the pirate bay and shared it openly with his fans.
Want to name ONE artist who has gotten access to the record companies promo capacity without signing over their copyright to the privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
are you supporting the pirate bay ripping off artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does Spotify provide advances? Marketing? Take control of copyrights? Hinder artist creativity? No!
So why the hell should Spotify pay the artist more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're increasingly not even addressing reality at this point. It's pathetic, but it makes countering their "points" a lot easier...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
carry on, just keep ripping off artists, that always ends well. you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ones apparently doing the ripping off are artists not tech, and talking about ripping off those same artists should be more concerned with their own support platforms(i.e. labels) which are infamous for doing exactly that.
As for pirates, well I hope they continue to rip you off, from today till the end of times, because that is exactly what you people deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"carry on, just keep ripping off artists,"
Like I proven to you and your ilk many, many times, I'll continue to consume music legally. Then I'll laugh my ass off because your ultimate failure could have been avoided if you'd listened to people like me telling you what they want. Instead, you attacked us as "pirates" when we tried telling you how to take our money. You refused my money, sorry, it's your own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Pirate Bay = 100% of the Artist Money
The Artist on TPB = 0% of the Artist Money
yes, that is called a rip off.
why are you defending a proven illegal business? just blocked in the UK by the way... more to come, house of card, falling... enjoy your post sopa victory lap...
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/74996.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One acronym...VPN.
It's hilarious how much money the RIAA puts into their endeavors, and yet there's always someone one step ahead of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the greater lengths you go to engage in criminal activity, the easier it is to acknowledge the crime.
lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully soon because then artists will have true freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the pirate bay makes the RIAA look like saints. the RIAA also has nothing to do with artists rights. the RIAA is looking out for labels not artists.
so your solution to one injustice is the support an even GREATER injustice. wow, you're a real genius there with that logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Pirate Bay has nothing to do with artists' rights. The Pirate Bay is about spreading their sociopolitical idea that art and information should be shared freely. They don't care who's producing it, nor should they. It is not relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where?
Where is the work the artist did there to warrant any money at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But they pay more than terrestrial radio, which is their closest analog equivalent.
You think I'm grateful to Google who post links to my work on pirate sites, then make some money from advertising off my loss.
You think Google posts links to your work on pirate sites? That's utterly ridiculous. Not even the rabid Google haters claim this.
And none of the big "pirate sites" use Adwords. I'm sure there are a few that slip through the cracks, but almost none of Google's profits come from them.
On the other hand, if you're a YouTube partner, most people can make more money from YouTube videos than they ever could from traditional media companies. (Not hard, since the amount of money most artists make from traditional media companies is zero.)
Besides, "tech corporate fat cats" don't just include Google and Spotify. It also includes iTunes (which pays much more directly to artists than labels ever did), Amazon, SoundCloud, CD Baby, Tunecore, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's fantastic news, just show me that contract and terms from the Pirate Bay is issuing artists, and how much they are paying and we can compare that to a record label contract.
Don't worry, I'll wait for you to show me the contract artists are getting from the Pirate Bay? Uh what? The Pirate Bay actually makes 100% of the money and pays the artists 0% of the money... oh, yeah, that's definitely 100xs better... for The Pirate Bay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, the Pirate Bay isn't a label. Second, the Pirate Bay isn't distributing music, they are pointing to where music is being distributed, and third, Pirate Bay is not the tech corporate fat cats.
You complain because nobody else understands what is going on here, but it is quite clear that you sir, are the clueless one.
But keep thrusting your fist in the air. Eventually you'll stop the world, or get struck by lightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm always reminded of this, and he's just as effective:
http://images.wikia.com/simpsons/images/b/b1/Hi.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perfect! Gonna have to store that somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-high-court-orders-service-providers-to-block-access- to-file-sharing-site-the-pirate-bay/2012/04/30/gIQA2bVkrT_story.html
tip o the iceberg... enjoy your post sopa victory lap while you can skippy... the wild west wasn't wild forever and neither will the internet be...
oh, and then there's this...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,829124,00.html
tick, tick, tick... buckle up... how's the CISPA campaign going? uh oh... no black out for that huh? well... you can see who's interest google is protecting now can't you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-enjoys-12-million-traffic-boost-shares-unblocking-ti ps-120502/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Almost the perfect idiot post, you just missed out the ad hominems and the kindergarten impression. 8 out of 10 squirrels approve of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, well actually yes: I think everyone is out of arguments. You have heard about fifty different relevant, substantive arguments in this thread - and you have responded to every single one of them by putting your fingers in your ears and shouting something about the Pirate Bay.
So yeah: those of us who don't just repeat the same argument over and over do, eventually, run out of arguments... but I'm afraid that says more about you than it does about us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you do, because you don't dare to voice your opinion under your own name, instead hide behind the "anonymous coward" nom de plume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but remind me again, what per cent do they keep? what per cent do they give to artists? i'm not sure if you've told us yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
why do you support the pirate bay ripping off artists? why do you hate artists so much leigh that you think it's OK for tech companies like the pirate bay to rip them off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You wanna try again, troll, Or have you fled the building already?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People are more inclined to pick apart your half assed argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and if they don't it shouldn't be hard for them to say so, themselves and directly.
don't let the cat getchyer tongue now, ya hear.
citation please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, that's not it's about, is it. There's a certain jealousy to your words regarding this tech blog...that or a teen beat Masnick poster on your wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
why do you hate artists so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
well I didn't before actually, but assuming you're an artist, then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you can always come to the light and just say "I leigh, do not support artists getting ripped off by the pirate bay."
If you don't support artists getting ripped off, just say so.
I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe that artists ARE being ripped off by the pirate bay.
So your question is invalid. I neither support nor not-support it, because it's not a real thing - it's a concept you made up.
Anyway, I'm about done listening to you repeat yourself over and over and over again. Good thing you're anonymous, because holy shit do you ever look like a fool on this comment thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and I'm loving your censorship, how SOPA of you, LOL... so yes, you look foolish indeed employing the very tactics you say you are against, of the irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lobbyist 0 x 2 Interwebz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But of course, in your worldview, they are all out to get you, and you wouldn't dream of using free stuff to promote your art, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you completely miss the point that labels are just as greedy. They tried to lower royalties for artists to 9%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And no one is stopping you to promote your legal channels on the pirate bay.
How about this: "Great, guys, that you found my work. If you like it, here is the link to my itunes page and my amazon page. I'd love it if you bought the album too. And here is the link to my kickstarter project, to help me fund my next album."
YOU are the one responsible for your own promotion, and the Pirate Bay is offering you a free place to distribute. They don't need to offer contracts and stuff like that. You don't need a contract to get paid.
The money they raise goes to bandwidth bills, they aren't filthy rich, like you imagine them to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't say The Pirate Bay. You said "tech corporate fat cats," which the Pirate Bay is not.
Trying to lump in all tech companies with the Pirate Bay is simply libelous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you're an artist and you're not making the money you want to, I'll give you a hint- The problem isn't the mean internet people taking your money away. Either not enough people know who you are, or you're music is shitty. Given that you're not even advertising who you are in this thread, where thousands of people would see your name and, even if they despise you, might take a moment to listen to your work, I'd bet the answer is that you're just absolutely terrible at promoting yourself. So, you can work on the problem you can solve (promoting yourself better) or you can yell angrily into the night that your life should be handled for you and everything should be simple and easy for artists.
Go ahead, try out both solutions, come back and tell me which one works better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sad, yes. True, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: honesty
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9811013-7.html
so much for that theory...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: honesty
You missed the second part of the headline: "Even with only a minority paying for the album, a former record industry executive estimates that Radiohead may not have done too badly."
The number of people who don't pay for an album means absolutely nothing. What matters is if more people paid than would have otherwise, and how much of that goes directly to the band.
In the end, it turns out that Radiohead made more from that record than from any record they put out on EMI. That's really the only thing that matters... at least if you're truly pro-artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
You guys keep talking like no one can take advantage of the internet without the help of pirates.
Yeah, the internet is great. because of it I don't need a label to reach fans. because of it I can publicise myself on blogs and forums. But because of pirates my music is taken against my wishes. If you were all doing us such a huge favour, the majority of musicians wouldn't be complaining about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
"the majority of musicians wouldn't be complaining about it" citation please? Guess what I can pull a "majority of musicians think that obscurity is a bigger problem than piracy" statement out of my arse too, based on all the musicians I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Everybody takes from the musician apparently except the musician OMG how musicians survive?
Also explain why you are different from a fashion designer that has no protections and still manage to make a living, how are you different from a carpenter that has no protections and still manages to make a living.
That you people don't like to talk about it because it exposes, that nonsense you call it yours, your music is the one you perform, is the one you sell to others through your merch, it is not what others enjoy for free, that is a vector and can lead to other places but you don't like that do you, in your little world everybody should pay only you, but that is not going to happen anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Change your wishes then - because that is the thing you CAN change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Then again, we all know you're just afraid of change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
No, we're talking like no one needs to put a lot of effort into eliminating piracy in order to take advantage of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
For the bands without the support of millions in corporate financing there is no upshot. More music is stolen than purchased and if every band had no label, the numbers would not grow. Ask all the hobbyists on Tunecore making an average of $277 a year. Wow, that's a living. That will pay the rent.
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Um. And how much do you think hobbyist musicians were making before Tunecore? Were they better off selling hand-burned CDs to the crowd of twenty people at the local bar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
that makes for more hobbyists, not more professional musicians.
is this the source of your favorite bands?
http://www.soundclick.com
which ones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Obviously the school system has cut back on music teachers then - since they are by far the largest group of professional musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
That is as reasonable as your own assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
www.jamendo.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
So you recognize that the shift is underway, and inevitable. That's good enough for me. The rest is just arguing about where exactly in that process we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Now I get it. They are just too damned ignorant of the argument that Google helps a lot more than the recording industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Now the music industry only makes Y% and google makes billions. Therefore any difference between y% and x% is money google steals from the record labels.
Of course ignore all the other new options for entertainment that are taking money use to spend on music. Because if people couldn't get free music they wouldn't buy these other things because they NEED music. The fucking NEED our content they are shitty pop music junkies. We spend millions on marketing getting them to need this content. No way someone could just play video games all the time without playing their pirated Bibier cds.
/retard
I imagine its some kind of broken logic like that. Works for any *woe is me, piracy!* industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
I know it is not worth it, but I would like to have a laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
But that hasn't happened. Just ask A$AP Rocky or Azalea Banks or Bon Iver or Neon Indian or Best Coast. They are choosing the label. Just because you perceive one change or another occurring (and clearly we are observing a massive amount of change in many directions) doesn't mean you can reasonably extrapolate it to some binary extreme that happens to be convenient for your argument. It just isn't sound reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
http://www.app.com/article/20091231/NEWS/91228067/In-digital-age-musicians-flourish-w ithout-major-labels
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/businesstruth/the_disrupters/35 68130/Artists-Without-a-label.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-schmitt/rethinking-the-mus ic-busi_b_857434.html
These are all examples of change in motion.
Besides, the Rolling Stones, Nine Inch Nails and quite a few other bands have given up on labels because they have been screwed in one way or another.
With that in mind, think of things this way...
If a newer band signs with a record company and incurs debt, but no success they end up paying back that debt yet if they attempt to market themselves their own way, even if they fail they will probably not accrue the same amount of debt (considering the free advertising avenues available) and still retain the rights to their music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Also, I never advocated piracy, I merely addressed one portion of your argument.
And as for the last paragraph, that was meant to emphasize the fact that doing things your own way incurs much less loss than going with a system that puts you into debt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Look at what artists really do when they succeed. And don't forget, just because you can sing and play a guitar does NOT mean people feel your creative efforts are worth paying for!
Right now ANYONE can release music or art online, but NOT anyone will be able to earn a living at it. This is NO different from the days before the web when the Gatekeepers (labels/movie studios) decided what was exposed and what was not.
So here ANYONE can release and EVERYONE WHO DOES HAS A FAIR CHANCE! But does NOT mean that everyone who releases will be a success.
Why are major label big earners losing some cash, competition! There's more art being created and more forms of entertainment (especially since video games went mainstream). That's why there's less money for people, but there's still enough for people to earn a living.
You won't be rich, but you CAN earn a living.
Caveat: you are NOT entitled to earn a living, you have to have created something people want!!! There's no gatekeeper. If people don't want your material or only a few do, you won't be fileshared much either, so blaming piracy for being unpopular is NOT a means of dealing with the situation.
But that's what we have. "Oh I suck but if I was with a label I'd have more money than Google will give me." Sorry but if you're not popular now, you would not even be on a label or you'd be dropped for not being profitable. And then without the internet, you would not even be heard!!! that's ZERO chance of exposure or income!
That's reality. Not a whole lot has changed except you have to do more yourself and you don't have a gatekeeper preventing you from trying and failing. 20 yrs ago you would not even be given that chance. Don't forget that!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
How does El-P expect me to become a fan? Because of his clever name? I have to hear the music first. The first goal is to get the music into everyone's ears. If radio's not going to do it for you, what are your options.
Artists complain about people downloading for free, but they have no qualms about people watching their video for free (which is actually much more work to produce), or streaming the music for free, or hearing it on the radio for free. From the fan's point of view - what's the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
I never got a license for listening to radio is that illegal?
I never got a license to play VEVO is the legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: honesty
"Castle, who has represented singer Sheryl Crow and worked for A&M Records, said that the money-generating lifespan of an album can last as long as two years. It starts when an act releases a record and is extended when the performer goes on a concert tour."
So tell me then, if 2 years is the "money-generating lifespan of an album", how is it in anyway just for copyrights to extend 70 years after the death of the artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
its not right that they cant have over a hundred year monopoly on anything and everything they paid somebody else to create(or bought the rights to)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: honesty
And of those quite a few probably downloaded the album without listening to it (doen that a few times - even for things I have paid for)
and how many of those 62% would have paid if that was forced on them?
The point is never how many paople downloaded and didn't pay. The only point is those who did pay and how much they paid.
I would regard anyone who received the amount of money Radiohead received for the amount of work they did and then proceeded to whine about the people who didn't pay as an ungrateful idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
...and the other factor people who whine about this tend to ignore - how many downloaded for free, listened *then* decided to pay? IIRC there was no way to simply donate, so paying for another copy would have meant downloading a "paid" copy on top of the "free" copy, thus skewing the statistics.
Among the many assumptions made in this by the pro-label folks, the idea that someone may obtain an album for free, and then are guaranteed to never, ever pay a penny later on down the line is one of the silliest. It's not only ridiculous, but it betrays an utter lack of understand of how people actually consume music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
that is not true as 62% of Radiohead FANS paid nothing for the bands album when the band gave them a choice to pay, or not. So this argument is FALSE.
you can move the goal posts, and you can change the conversation, but the fact remains the assertion that "fans will support the artists they like" is absolutely false if given the choice to obtain the album for free, even if illegally so.
FAIL, Next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
There go educate yourself so you don't look so dumb when talking out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Radiohead is doing just fine. Their fans are rabidly supporting them. You can't just pluck one figure and claim that it proves it's "FALSE" that people want to support artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Apparently they did it in 2011 more than once.
https://www.youtube.com/user/radiohead
Further the first song on their Youtube channel tells people to go download a copy on their website LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Why would they keep giving away music for free if they weren't able to get money some way?
I bet when you go fishing you tell the freetard fish not to eat your bait right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
What percentage of the 62% were fans? Citation needed.
What percentage of the 62% purchased the album physically or purchased the album by downloading it again, paying for it this time?
What percentage of the 62% purchased other material from Radiohead?
You do not have the answers and you cannot assume, because you want to produce an argument, what you have no evidence for.
And when supplied evidence from IFPI is mathematically impossible, their studies lose credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
FTFY
Not to mention that each download was probably not a unique person. You also don't know how many people that never bought a radiohead album before bought that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
dont tell me that the lables dont do stuff like this, because they have been caught at it quite a few times, having their reps seed stuff just so they can send dmca notices out or even sue people....pretty dishonest if you ask me....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
All in all your argument is pointless unless you can do a direct comparison between what Radiohead made of sales of that record even using your numbers and what they would have been paid by EMI for moving a similar number of records. Until you can do that your figures and arguments mean nothing.
Keep in mind that Radiohead isn't universally loved or liked and that a significant number of people who weren't fans downloaded for nothing, listened to it then deleted it, found that they really did like the band and paid later. How many of those downloads were people who just heard about what they were doing said "why not, I've got nothing to lose" and made up a large proportion of that 62%. The curiosity factor. Let's posit 20% of that number and now you're approaching a different situation where nearly half the downloads were paid for up front. Remembering that Radiohead took that into account with the option to buy now pay later built into the offer.
If I take the number of records I never bought but had access to, one way or another, compared to what I did buy in the days before the Internet I'd say it's more than half of them I listened to so, in effect, I pirated that music because the owner of the LP/CD/Whatever let me listen more than once or loaned it to me because I said I was curious about the artists. A fairly common practice back in those dark ages. Actually it still is commonplace. Therefore I MUST be a pirate by your definition in that the artist never got paid for what I temporarily had in my possession and listened to before returning it.
On the other hand I did buy more than 40% of the recordings I was loaned before returning them. Which must mean I became a FAN by your definition because they were loaned to me.
This was long before the wasteland of the 1990's and early part of this century where it was commonplace to slap down money on a CD and end up with something that had one decent song on it. Not at all unusual there either.
(Tangential question...was it the label or the artist trying to rip me off?)
Acts that I know and that I'm a FAN of I always buy, often before any listen. Fan, of course, is the short form of Fanatic so that does mean I'll support them even if "free" is available. I'm not alone there either.
The OC, as you call him is actually right. FANS will support him. The curious might after listening to the cut or CD as a whole but those who have no interest will never pay for his stuff no matter what. They can download from pirate sites, borrow the CD from a friend burn their own copy but they will never pay. The same way it's always been.
The only FAIL here is you and your black and white (and angry) world.
The artist who guest posted here will SUCCEED. Just because you claim to be a musician doesn't mean you'll succeed or make a living off music. That never was or ever will be the case. Like everyone else in this would you're gonna have to work at it. Recording contract or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
because you obviously don't know what the word means.
62% of the people who were offered the choice to pay nothing
took that choice. You still haven't proven that every single person who downloaded the album was a fan.
Just like everyone who listens to the radio is not a fan of every single band played on that radio.
There is a difference between down loaders and fans.
Just like there is a difference between radio listeners and fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
I wasn't a fan of radio head when i downloaded that album.
I saw the news story about them on ET Canada thought it was a no risk option to just download the album.
Which i did.
I didn't like it so i deleted it.
they did however mail me later on which introduced me a band that i did like (thru an affiliate link btw)
I wasn't a fan before i downloaded
and i wasn't a fan after i downloaded it.
How many other people were exactly like me.
BTW
dan bull is the reverse i downloaded all his stuff from the pirate bay
I happened to like the google+ version of sharing is caring
so i bought that one.
I am now a fan of his work, and a fan of his approach.
If he does the multiple versions of the song thing again odds are good one of them will appeal to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
no, there's no data to support that claim. what data we do have is that 62% of the bands FANS decided not to pay the band for their album.
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Shocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
No, the data we have is that 62% of albums were acquired without payment. That does not necessarily translate to 62% of fans getting it without payment. For one thing, a person can download an album and then buy it if they like it, contributing to both slices of the pie chart. Then there's the people who hadn't heard of the band before, and so at the time of downloading could not be considered fans.
And even discounting those, you're still getting mad at the fact that that number of people didn't buy the album. I can't begin to count the number of albums that I haven't bought; whether or not I've listened to them doesn't have any financial effect on the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
One can very easily draw a conclusion that, the arrival of MP3s and piracy have directly lead to the falling recorded music sales.
It would seem that the numbers correlate very nicely here. Denying it is pretty much admitting you don't want to see anything that blows up your pro-piracy views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Do you even read the RIAA reports?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Also plot the piracy numbers that keep growing.
Further plot mark the dates of the "education campaign" in the US and see how well it lines up with the decline in sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
"It would seem that the numbers correlate very nicely here."
It also correlates to people buying singles instead of albums. Also to the rise in popularity in DVD sales. Also to the rise of videogame sales. Also to the rise in the price of gasoline in the US. Also to the unemployment rate. Also to the availability of hybrid cars and the rise in smartphones leading to planking, probably.
"It would seem that the numbers correlate very nicely here."
Everything looks like a nail to a hammer owner. That doesn't mean you can make my TV work by smashing it with a hammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
The advent of MP3s made unbundling possible for the consumer so there is a correlation to that and declining sales, but not for the reasons you were implying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Right, no data for that either!!!
People downloaded, not necessarily fans.
Simple logic for you: Sheep have four legs, but not all four legged animals are sheep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honesty
Go ahead, let's see that LIST of artists? You know like all the artists on Tunecore making an average of $2179 per year.
Wow, That's success!
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042511tunecore#dLuDbcK_0fMVeNKJf4N0QQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
She started on the internet I believe.
There are a lot more people though that are making 6 figures just on Youtube alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_personalities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
Got a gig on Glee and started on Youtube LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
same with beiber, is youtube paying the bills or interscope records. hmmm, let me guess... Interscope Records.
pick a lie and stick to it.
you are just pointing out how youtube can't support artists and they need to get real gigs that really pay. thanks for making the point so clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
It's stupid, but I fear there's more than one person actually sticking to this tactic, which is as pathetic as it is counter-productive, but there you go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
That is what you said.
Those links shows that people actually can get famous without EMI spending millions on making them, they can do it using Youtube and even get hired by EMI.
Bieber was made on Youtube, the girl for the Glee was made on Youtube, many others are being made by Youtube with a growing number making six figures on there alone and you are saying it is not possible?
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111103labelpays
I guess Tunecore is not all so bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: honesty
you might want to read the statement you are responding too
I truly believe most fans will support the artists they like.
people who haven't decided if they like the band yet are not fans.
They won't be fans until the next album.
Oh and btw radio head now has all those people on their mailing list.
And they made more money selling those new fans tickets/merchandise/old albums/ pushing them to their youtube videos and collecting ad payments/ then they would have made selling them the album at full price given the standard record deals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have to say that you are pretty much dealing with the shit sandwich of piracy as best you can. But in the end, I think it's clear that you know you are having to eat a lot of shit here to try to make a living.
Your attitude is wonderful, but it is to me incredibly demoralizing to see the position you are in. It's incredibly hard for you to making a living as a musician when people are taking for free the very product you are trying to sell. You may not think you are begging, but in the end, that is really what you are doing. There is nothing left except hoping that you can convince people to pay you for what they already have for free.
Good luck with it. I wouldn't wish the current situation on anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's hard to make a living as .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1 copy != 1 lost sale.
The vast majority of musicians have never made a living solely performing music, even if you add recording to that (which the music industry initially rejected violently -- see player pianos ... etc ... Ad infinitum).
People seem to think El-P is talented and entertaining, and I wish him the best. He certainly comes off as sincere.
So ... do subway buskers suffer more from piracy than obscurity?
So you can digitally copy the experience of a live performance?
The only shit sandwich here is the one you are serving which has 1 topping of 1 copy = 1 lost sale, and 1 topping of there used to be a golden age where the labels made every promising artist rich.
I wouldn't wish your world view on anyone.
Oh ... is shit sandwich the new shill phrase of the month?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1 copy != 1 lost sale.
"
Perhaps the ultimate strawman. Can you please find me anywhere, anywhere, ever, anyone on the label side saying that.
It doesn't exist. Don't believe the hype, right?
"The only shit sandwich here is the one you are serving which has 1 topping of 1 copy = 1 lost sale,"
That is your flawed interpretation of things. Again, please point me to a single person on the label side saying that. It doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All the labels care about is money.
Herp derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://themusicaldisconnect.blogspot.com/2012/01/google-announces-ads-free-just-buy-tee.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll bet you wrote that all by yourself didn't you, freakyleakydahboatasinky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you paid them already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want to be taken seriously? Stop cherrypicking a piece of the argument and extrapolating that premise to the entire argument, thus providing yourself with a strawman fallcy.
Instead read all presented premises and the actual argument presented. Otherwise expect backlash when you complain "you just want us to sell tshirts and give our music away" which isn't want anyone here suggested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
also, forcing artists to make money from touring and merchandising is a step BACKWARDS. It's not innovation to take a 40 year leap BACKWARDS. So much for your argument of innovation when the best thing you can offer is sending artists BACKWARDS 40 years.
if the online models were truly innovative they wouldn't need to illegally exploit artists and creators to get the models to work. the models would work with innovative new content.
So where are all those bands and movies being financed by the pirate bay and other pirate sites? how come these guys have a business model ONLY when they can monetize the work and labor of someone else?
Even Google's Chief Economist knows you are WRONG...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) Wrong understanding, copies do not ALWAYS equate to money - meaning you can't say that selling copies is guaranteed income because it isn't - which does NOT mean you cannot sell copies, just means you can't guarantee it will be income
3) Exploitation? Talk to Billy Corgan about that, no one exploited artists more than the labels
4) Pirate Bay does NOT make enough money to provide FREE distribution AND advances to artists -- can you stop insisting otherwise?
5) "How come these guys have a business model ONLY when they can monetize the work and labour of someone else" -- that's EXACTLY what a label does!
The work of the artist, producer, mixer, marketing people, etc... - they monetize the work and labour of someone else - provide a loan (and ARE PAID BACK so don't hand me that "unrecouped loss" funded by successful acts) which is akin to your bank lending you $50000 for your dream store you want to open, of which you have to pay for the tellers and loan officers who worked with you, pay for storage of your information in the banking system, and the bank takes all your revenue and gives you back a small portion, from which you have to pay back the $50000. But you can't buy any merchandise to sell because you didn't earn a profit despite selling everything in the store, so you have to get another loan for $20000 to buy stock. Now you're in debt to them $70000 and they take all your revenue and give you a pittance.
Don't you get it? The Pirate Bay is not a bank lending you money and taking your revenue. The Pirate Bay provides the roads to your store so people can find you and your stock. And it is free, you didn't have to pay for those roads to be installed.
You want to compete with free? Give THEM A REASON TO BUY and THEY WILL!!!! Otherwise the downloaders who never would have bought anyhow will listen to you in the background while they play Wii (which they PAID for - that is the money they COULD have paid to you if you gave them more of a reason than "I recorded this").
The real problem is competition now exists amongst the entertainment industry members. It's no longer movies and music. It's movies/music/video games (no longer a fringe group - but instead mainstream!!!!)/social networks etc.. some people pay for some they don't.
Who is going to pay for music if they don't feel they get anything from it and would rather play video games free on Facebook while chatting with friends?
What is their incentive to purchase the music? If they are a fan, that's the incentive.
You have NO idea who was a fan and who was not, neither does Radiohead or EMI. So cut the "62% fan" bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure you have access to them, so I'm not going to cite them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"......RIAA�s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale. ....."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Come on. The quote is "in space" with all of the context around it removed. Are you fucking kidding me? Even Mike wouldn't cherry pick that bad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is a court case filled by the RIAA you can go get the court records those are public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, if the quote that got to the heart of the matter isn't satisfying to you then read the full 17 page court decision here in all it's context...
http://tinyurl.com/usa-vs-dove-pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not true in the slightest. They do indicate that, if all pirate copies were sales, they would be X amount. Nobody specifically says that each pirated item is a lost sale, only that IF they were lost sales, they would be worth X.
It really isn't the same thing. It's a bad argument from those looking to belittle the recording industry and to deny what is going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
looks to me like it was Jaime Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum who got bitch slapped. Even a Harvard Law Prof couldn't argue effectively against the illegal exploitation of artists work without consent or compensation.
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is a strawman and an idiotic misdirection. If they're fully aware that this will never happen, why are these figures even discussed?
Perhaps if these studies were based on realistic figures and not pie-in-the-sky unachievable figures, they would be taken more seriously? Perhaps start with an intellectually honest study that accepts that free downloads can have effects in the opposite direction (e.g. people buying copies and/or supporting artists in other ways after having listened to a pirated copy - and YES this does happen).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do remember radio putting "1 Hr non-stop music" what do you think that was for?
3M made a fortune in cassette tapes, nobody complained then.
Even today you can find all the crap you want for free and legally.
Are you going to stop putting music on VEVO?
So no, piracy is not really your problem nor is free, is your crazy entitlement mentality and laws that enables you to be that dense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then the solution is to create music for video games then.
Seriously you need to accept that videogames have created a new option for entertainment spending - and that was always going to reduce the market for music, with or without piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're either joking, or really, REALLY stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I made 6 points, none of which you responded to.
That's a pretty pathetic argument.
By the way ... I'll let the more research inclined here support this, but if I recall, the *AAs report each download as more than 1 lost sale. I could be wrong, but I am not wrong about the 1 lost sale equation.
Funny you call something you know you can not punch down a straw man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
every download does not equal a 1:1 lost sale, but every lost sale can be attributed to an illegal download. there's a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a joke, right?
A "lost sale" is simply a consumer who decided not to buy your particular product, for any reason. That can't be attributed solely to "illegal downloads" even in the wettest dreams of a lonely RIAA lobbyist.
Every potential customer who decides the price is too high is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who can't get the product because of regional restrictions is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who won't buy your product because of restrictive DRM is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who decides to pay rent instead is a "lost sale."
Most importantly of all, every potential customer who buys an MP3 instead of a CD is counted as a "lost sale" - at least if you're talking about the drop in revenue to the recording industry post-2004.
Illegal downloads have very little to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
+1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. The last album sale a major label lost from me was the soundtrack to The Raid, which I wasn't allowed to buy due to regional restrictions. I can cite other sales lost as a direct result of high pricing, low quality previews or tracks unavailable outside of an album package. None of these have anything to do with piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The thing is, we know that the recorded music industry dropped 60% in the Napster decade. You would have to be more than slightly daft not to accept that there is some causation here.
Well, daft or Mike Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No - there is only correlation - and here are some other correlated things
1) The cost of CD's stays high - despite the fact that evryone knows they now cost pennies to make.
2) My generation have completed the process of replacing their vinyl with CD. I stopped buying CDs duriing that period - apart from purchases made direct from the artist at concerts.
The piracy hypothesis is not required to explain the figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Getting busted for price fixing and having a new platform that allows indie musicians to functionally compete had nothing to do with it at all.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nor the fact that people were replacing worn out vinyl and stretched/chewed cassette tapes.
The devil is in the details and the only people will the full demographical information containing proof that new sales were dropping before Napster and people were replacing old, previous purchased formats are the labels. The same companies who won't ever let that cat out of the bag because they know it would discredit their so-called studies. All we have are samples that prove such. No mass collection.
Want that proof? Indict the labels and subpoena their financial and data records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many people try before they buy, so even that might not be fully accurate. They might buy it after getting a pirated copy.
Correlation does not mean causation. The industry drop could equally be caused by the rise of independent artists bypassing the main publishers and dealing with the public directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"......RIAA�s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale. ....."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/01/riaas-download-equals-lost-sale-t heory.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/16551717500/jonathan-coulton-destroys-ration ale-behind-megaupload-seizure-with-single-tweet-follows-up-with-epic-blog-post.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/01/riaas-download-equals-lost-sale-theo ry.html
Happy now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guess you can't follow simple instructions, can you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A lot of musicans are fan supported. I hope more and more are. There was a recent article on Amanda Palmer and she appears to be doing better with her fans than with her label. I know Marillion was a pioneer in asking fans for pre-orders and tour locations. I heard about them through their efforts to organize a tour and checked them out.
One of the falliacies is expecting every download to be a sale or lost sale. I'm going to have to look up who this is and their music to know if it is something I'm interested in. One thing confusing to me is why does anyone expect me to buy something before I've heard it.
Nearly 100% of what I've bought based on a 30-60 second sample, I've deleted. It wasn't what I thought it was. Most of my all time favorites and must-have's I discovered after I had listened to it for awhile. Good music can take time to grow. I like listening as a single, in context with the album and as part of a compliation. It can mean different things to me at different times.
I'm not going to buy just "to check it out". Consider it advertising that's better than playing on the radio. I also know that I do buy a lot more music when I can explore a wide variety to find what I like. The only way I have of discovering a new band or music is through the internet and transferred to disc or device so that I can actively listen.
Before the internet I bought zero. I kept to the same stuff that I had listened to for decades largley because I had no idea what I had been missing. When I run into friends now that are listening to decades old "hits" I try to explain there's a lot more out there and it's kind of hard to do because of this myth that music is dying, no money in it and everything comes from a major label or anything that's worth listening to is on the radio / hit chart (which is rubbish).
Not everyone is going to like everything anymore than not everyone should make a living in the music business just because they want to.
I would like to make a living at being a visual artist and it's a gamble. Do I expect to be paid everytime someone looks at my work? How do I handle it when someone buys something and in a few years resells it for much more money - why don't I get a cut off that sale too (based on music major label laws)? Does any visual artist make a living (or even a profit) off of a gallery - and if not, why do they keep showing there?
I keep showing for exposure, i.e. promotion. One of the foundations of copyright law was to encourage new works - not to live off the old forever. If someone copies or reuses, it's because I did something they liked, iconic maybe. But I'm going to try to do it even better next time and that's where I want to make money - not on something old. I have to love what I do and have something to say or add if I expect to make a living at it. It has to be better than just "good". It has to be great and really special. I would be doing it with or without money.
I tend to expect that of musicians too. They have to love it and have something unique that puts them above the rest. I am amazed (and a little scared) by how creative and talented the average person is. Sometimes I think the only divide is those that are professionals would do it anyway and can't stop. The hobbiest has other priorities.
I want to see my stuff out there first. Then I'll look at making a living from it. But I never want to feel entittled to make a living at it.
I haven't read the first article, nor do I know who this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually all musicians are fan supported - and always have been - with the notable exception of a few gentlemen of independent means - such as Henry VIII.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How true, and it's always been that way - reminds me of those old black and white clips from the early 60s of John Lennon and the other Beatles being interviewed, and the condescending way in which the reporters would speak to them - as though they were children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One way to end the copyright battle is to stop signing away management and the business side of their career. You also have to remember that many labels make all sorts promises, shiny new things, big advances that they are selling. They also have a distribution network. It can be hard to turn down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
but what's worse is, if an artist doesn't sign to a label, they still can't get paid from pirates (who are making 100% of the money)
so you are asking artists to not get paid, so that they can have no hope of getting paid for the consumption of their music.
asking artists to tour and sell t-shirts is an outright admission that there is no money for musicians in the online economy, and further more, it's a step backwards of about 40-50 years... that's how artists did it before the internet and you want them to go backwards not forwards.
of course anyone can put an album up via tunecore, but the average tunecore artist is only making $179 a year...
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042511tunecore#dLuDbcK_0fMVeNKJf4N0QQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes when anyone can put an album up the average an artist makes goes down. I can upload myself farting on a snare drum it won't sell but it can be on there. It brings down the average of the talented acts that do make money. Also these are acts that did not have access to this revenue stream before. Going from 0 a year to 179 a year is a 80 bazillion % increase.
Also every time you say that the average goes down. At least keep your bullshit straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How condescending is to say "Look you don't understand how hard it is to work as a musician", everybody understand perfectly, everybody knows how hard it is to work, because everybody works or worked at some point so everyone understands how hard it is.
Which is why nobody is going to accept special treatment for any class of people, specially if it impinges on their own rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do hope, and expect, that your fans will support you.
I also hope you spend some small bits of time you can afford lurking here so you can see the debate around these topics. Or even comment, or better yet ... guest post again :-)
I think you would see in the posts (comments are more dodgy) that artists that reject the idea of suing fans, and 1 copy = 1 lost sale are celebrated here as actually having a firm grasp on the sorts of things that they can understand / control / comprehend.
Thanks again for the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: being a human being and explaining why you're unhappy with things is a lot better than demonizing the opposition in opening negotiations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love it
Well said. Just remember that the fans are also navigating these new tides. I think the recent breakout of kickstarter shows that most (or at least enough) people's hearts are in the right place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Will Be Fine
Musicians are not children, they are independent business persons. The reason why they were formerly treated as children is because they signed abusive contracts with record labels. The labels then treated them badly, thus they ended up with child status. Arguments have been made that the abusive contracts were inevitable, but musicians need to step up and take responsibility. Signing an abusive contract is never a wise move. Seek alternatives.
The magic of the internet has now given musicians a way forward with a lot less pressure to sign an abusive contract. The peddlers of abusive contracts are as mad as hell about that, it is costing them money. Their shills comment here regularly, then the community calls them out. However, nobody is entitled to be the beneficiary of an abusive contract, no matter how long they may have been engaged in the practice.
The economics of infinite goods is difficult and counter-intuitive. Art is difficult, too. So artists have a learning curve. Here at Techdirt we aim to help artists find their way. The answer is the doctrine "Connect with Fans then give them a Reason to Buy", abbreviated here as "CwF+RtB". You are doing fine with connecting with fans. Now you need to give us real scarcities with reasons as to why we might buy them. Infinite goods are infinite and the price of them inevitably goes to zero. Shiny disks and concert tickets are just two of a whole universe of scarce goods possibilities. If you have fans who love you and you offer them reasonable things to buy, you cannot help but make money. There are many stories on Techdirt about artists who have followed the doctrine and succeeded.
We want you to succeed, but do it without violating our human rights and with giving us art that we want. Do not get misled by the erroneous arguments of the shills. They are not your friends. Your fans are your friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Will Be Fine
I don't know where to start, phew.
This idea that generations of intelligent, articulate and independent thinking musicians ALL signed 'abusive' contracts is beyond demeaning. I wouldn't mind quite so much if I thought the majority of people who parroted this crap had ever had ANY experience of a record label. You believe the crap about abuse because it makes you feel better when you rip off ordinary musicians like EI-P.
In the end, the whole debacle is about freedom of choice.
If EI-P is ok with fans downloading his music before it's released, that's absolutely fine. If I'm not OK with that, you should respect my choice to continue to sell my music. If you don't want to buy it, don't take it against my wishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
2) Piracy isn't all black and white. Take this for example. I'd never heard of the band Nightwish before. I downloaded ((re: Pirated)) their latest album, Imaginaerum, to give it a listen. The next day, I went out and brought the 2-CD physical album, having to take busses all over town to find who had it in stock.
3) Anyone who signs with the RIAA or associated labels is in an abusive contract. If you don't believe me, then point out ways I'm wrong, give citations.
4) I have never heard of El-P before now. If his album hadn't leaked, I wouldn't have even heard of him. Now I know he's out there, and I feel like taking a look at some of his stuff, and maybe buying an album if I like it.
5) I respect both of your opinions, but I also have my own. Don't knock it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
here ya go:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post /
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Just because one isn't as bad as the other, doesn't mean it isn't abusive.
And now, digging through the techdirt archives, here's the reasons for my arguments.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/16295418031/kid-cudis-wzrd-debuts-no-3-despi te-being-swept-under-rug-universal.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/03503317944/em i-sneakily-trying-to-pretend-many-its-artists-cant-reclaim-their-copyrights.shtml
http://www.tech dirt.com/articles/20120228/17592017904/if-major-labels-are-all-about-helping-artists-why-do-we-keep- seeing-artists-calling-out-their-labels-screwing-them.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2012 0209/17243617721/tunecore-riaa-has-become-part-problem-artists.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/arti cles/20120208/01453517694/riaa-totally-out-touch-lashes-out-google-wikipedia-everyone-who-protested- sopapipa.shtml ((Bad for everyone, not just artists))
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/15060817494/busta-rhymes-backs-megaupload-say s-record-labels-are-real-criminals.shtml
I'm sure I could find more, but I think I've made my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Uh yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I'm sure being a part of the RIAA is -great-, I'm /suuuuuuuuuuure/ that you guys can't find /aaaaany/ other method that wont' screw you over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120430/04432118703/dan-bulls-free-sin gle-hits-charts.shtml
"Last week we wrote about Dan Bull's experiment to release a song, "Sharing is Caring" for free via The Pirate Bay (and other sites) and to see if he could still get it to show up in various charts. As we discussed, it definitely was making its way onto the lists of Amazon UK's top hip hop sales. And, on Sunday, the official UK charts came out -- with Sharing is Caring coming in at number 9 on the Indie singles chart and number 35 on the RnB singles chart."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
so where are all those contracts for all of those other THOUSANDS of artists? if the pirate bay is not afraid of the way they abuse artists why don't they let them remove their material?
the real abuse and oppression is by the pirates who profit and pay artists NOTHING, EVER, not a single penny, while they the pirates continue to get richer and richer.
Where are those contracts and payments again? Oh, they don't exist... yup, you got nuthin but BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
The only one spewing complete BS here is you. Clearly you must work for a label because every post of yours has "contract" in it somewhere. Either that or you truly enjoy getting bent over the table for your regular flesh to flesh colonoscopy after signing away all your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
But back to my point, where is pirate bay gonna get this "mony" to pay artists?
What do you think would happen if pirate bay started a business model in order to earn "this cash" which they will be paying to the artists?
I tell you what will happen, more direct intervention and cock blocking by those in the same business, and then the inevitable techdirt whiners
" YOU SEE, bunch of thiefs making money of media company PROPERTIES, i was right always have been, in your face, freeterds"
While convienintly ignoring the reason behind it, and the "in your face" FACT, that these actions would create a direct competitor, in this case superior competitor in regards to delivery, to those that are trying to bash, shame, and creating laws to make it legal to essentially destroy competition
In a nut shell, to those particular techdirt commenters putting words in other peoples mouths in order to BASH, and that IS what their goal is, i say
"Fuck Y'all, kool aid drinking, motherfckers"
Stay stale, and rot, metaphysically speaking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
So they could indeed hurt the artists careers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I'd like to know where the attitude came from that thinks anyone who is a musican / artist is entittled to be paid? Some people enjoy making music and would do it whether they got paid or not.
I'm not saying that no musicians should be paid. What I am saying is that it is a competitive field with a lot of extremely good people in it and a lot more people would like to do it as a profession, but that doesn't mean they should all be successful or making money doing it.
A lot of people are actors or actresses. Do they all deserve to be in the movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
the same mechanism that makes every link you posted above possible, is the mechanism you are arguing to take away from artists, copyrights.
so when you can show me an artist contract with a pirate site like the pirate bay (and others), that offers better terms than labels, and pays on those terms, than you'll have a point.
until than all you have is the usual BS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Try sites like kickstarter. Or, I dunno, monetize on youtube. Or, I dunno, go independent; sell your music without a third party via digital means.
I'm not saying it's easy.
But it's not like the record labels make it easy on you either.
Oh, and there are plenty of stories floating around about artists who don't get paid royalties from labels. You just block 'em out of your mind because "Oh, artists can sue them. I don't care that the labels fuck up their contracts all the time or screw with artists."
Labels only care about two things.
Themselves.
And money.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
when the pirate bay offers artists a contract and terms better than the labels you'll have a point, until then you got a hand full of gooey stinky brown stuff.
there are NO contracts and payments to artists from pirate sites. the failure of your logic is to promote a greater injustice to replace a lessor one.
so where are all those contracts for artists to get paid from the pirate bay? where? let's see those links? you got those? Huh? Where are they?
Oh yeah, pirate sites rip off artists so they they the pirate site can profit 100% and pay the artists ZERO, Nothing, Nadda, Zippo...
really man, why do you hate artists so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
You sound mightily intent that I'm somehow trying to connect this all to saying artists should go on pirate sites and allow themselves to have music shared? When I said -nothing- of the sort? You really -ARE- delusional.
Why do you hate rationality so much? Umad, bro? Or just trollin'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
what? the pirate bay and other pirate site rip off artists 100% and don't offer any kind of contract or payment? wow. crazy...
just provide a copy of those great artist friendly non-oppressive pirate contracts for artists that actually pay the artists, let's have it.
let's see how well artist are being treated by corporations profiting from the artists work without ANY contracts or payments.
Go ahead, provide those contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
there are no artists contracts with the pirate sites who profit 100% while paying the artists 0%
so are you now saying that pirate site should respect artists and remove any material the artist doesn't want there? are you saying the pirate sites should offer contracts to artists that are more competitive than label contracts and that the pirate sites should honor those contracts?
pick a lie and stick to it already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I'm not going to try an defend an imaginary argument that you are flat out lying I said.
This isn't even a strawman any more. It's gotten stupider than that.
It's a -chewbacca defence-.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense
You're not even worth replying to from here on out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
so yes, according to the RIAA you need a contract with an RIAA lable to legally distribute, if you dont, they will do their level best to insure your content never sees the light of day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Get off it, you sound like Lowery and his anti-Google/Apple rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
P2P is a distribution system. It's also exposure. Radio is dead. They aren't comparable to a record label.
Why would anyone buy something they hadn't heard before? There is a much greater chance of selling your music after someone hears it.
This whole thing sounds anti-competitive. It used to be the radio was the gateway with apx 50 singles making a rotation. There would be one song that stood out from the rest.
Now there are thousands easily available with a handful standing out from the rest. The odds got a lot worse for musicians. As a listener, I can sample regional and foreign markets in addition to traditional national and local acts. I can also sample unsigned or hobbyist musicians. That raises the bar.
As a consumer I like to think that talent will be rewarded over marketing and promotion. I know that's not entirely true, but I think a no label, talented musician has a much better shot of making it now than they did 20 years ago. It also means that potential fans need to do a lot of sampling in order to find them.
What Pirate Bay offers is exposure to a potential market. People buy zero of what they haven't been exposed to.
ttp://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/pirate-bays-promo-bay-fl.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
YOU are getting FREE exposure from these pirate sites (like free exposure on youtube, and free exposure on the radio and any other distribution methods), YOU can then use that to YOUR advantage.
If you don't use it, but instead go and sulk in a corner, then it's your own damn fault that no one is buying your crap.
Putting out music for sale is like a real job, you have to put an effort into getting paid. Gee whiz! Who'd ever have thunk it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
here ya go:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-p ost /
Well actually the title says it all - "worse than the old boss" already implies that the old boss was bad - so you haven't made your point - you've undermined it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I would not make the assumption that because Lowery claims the good 'ol days were good and now sucks (the rest of his article(s) were mostly a rant and were built off the concept that you have to sell copies to make money, along with some anti-tech company banter with wrong assumptions for his rant).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I dunno, maybe you can post the mental health records of David Bowie, Paul McCartney, Sting, Mick Fleetwood, Bruce Springsteen proving how crazy they were to sign a major label contract time and time and time again. And how disturbed they were to come to their senses one day only to realise they'd amassed millions of dollars and several mansions around the world.
I have never heard of El-P before now. If his album hadn't leaked, I wouldn't have even heard of him. Now I know he's out there, and I feel like taking a look at some of his stuff, and maybe buying an album if I like it.
It seems to me you actually found out about him because people on a blog you go to are talking about him.
This is the dumb paradox we are supposed to swallow. The internet helps artists by people downloading their work against their wishes. While apparently the internet has no power to promote artists through thousands of people talking about those artists on thousands of blogs and forums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I'm sure being a part of the RIAA is -great-, I'm /suuuuuuuuuuure/ that you guys can't find /aaaaany/ other method that wont' screw you over.
Also, reposting your comment after it's been thoroughly burned isn't generally a smart idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
it's your argument back up it up, don't be weak and hide behind some bogus strawman claim, you're smarter than that.
Where are the contracts and payments to artists from the pirate bay? Why do you hate artists so much? Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
" if you are arguing about the injustice of labels, why don't you just provide the links to the contracts and payments the pirate bay is offering to artists" Has ZERO relevance to a damn thing I've said, and is completely out of left field.
It is *not* my argument. It's the words you're pulling out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
labels may be asses, but they are assess who provide contracts and pay artists. there are no contracts or payments to artists from pirate sites who profit 100% while paying the artists 0%
so your solution to one injustice is to create and promote an even larger injustice. sorry, that's not a strawman, that's just a poor argument on your part and you lose on those grounds.
the argument is coming from your mouth, so... you might want to watch you are putting your face if you think the argument is coming from my ass, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
You really are desperate at this point, aren't you?
Troll harder, kthnx.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
that's ZERO money paid to artists. ZERO.
That's desperate indeed that a business model is sooooo bad, that it requires ripping off artists 100% so that they can make their MILLIONS.
Labels Pay Artists. Pirates Don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Do people like this really exist? Is this level of pigheaded stupidity real? Even the labels know it isn't really about piracy its about control of the market. This guy...this guy can't be for real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
You realize that pirates are consumers/customers right? They are actually the only way labels or artists make money. But suing and condescending and insulting them is surely your best way to get them to support you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
why do you support ripping off artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
And yet thousands of less than 'uber successful' artists work with labels all the time, releasing records, making money. I mean getting back to my original point, it's just demeaning to the intelligence of the creative community to suggest even the majority of them (let alone all) blissfully signed abusive contracts, and so far haven't complained other than a few well publicised moans.
You oh so want it to be true, so you just keep repeating it, hoping it will stick.
Ask any artist, any artist, almost all of them will tell you they'd prefer a record contract to widespread piracy - if it has to be a choice between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never said that piracy was an alternative. I'm arguing that it's shades of grey, and that not every pirated copy is a lost sale, which the labels seem to drive into everything. In fact, labels argue that every pirated copy is worth much, much more than a single sale, to the point where they argue billions of dollars in damages, which, in my opinion, is bullshit. And, any -successful- lawsuits, all the money goes to the lawyers and the labels. Not the artists.
The solution to piracy is not attacking it. The solution is actually offering a service that's up to date with technology.
I'm in NZ. I can't view netflix. I can't view hulu, or hulu plus. Where can I watch movies online? Where is a legal way to do that?
Oh, right.
I can't.
Arbitrary licensing restrictions placed on by the folks at the MPAA/etc.
I can't use Google Movies. I can't watch TV shows through iTunes or buy season passes.
The only damn thing the industry does here is provide Steam. And guess how many steam games I own? Over a hundred. Because they're reasonably priced, and readily available, without intrusive, clunky DRM that restricts customer rights.
I want to be served. And it's just not happening. This is meerly an example.
If they offered Netflix here, with a decent selection? HELL YES I'd pay for it.
But, why stop there? Why not go further. You see, pirates are going to pirate, whether they like it or not. What's to stop them from offering DRM-free copies of shows that you can download and store on your hardrive in formats like AVI, MKV and MP4? People would pay through the nose to get that privilege. Instead, the entertainment industry shoves it's foot in the idea, accusing piracy of making them unable to do it. Do they not realise that if they don't offer content in a similar way that pirates do, only paid, people would 100% use it?
Sorry, I've gone off on a tangent here, but this is one of the things that really grinds my gears. They bitch about piracy so much, yet the obvious solution is right in their face, and they seem to think that suing people is a better alternative than innovating.
It's a similar situation in the music industry. But the difference is, with stuff like iTunes? The music industry is farther along than the movie and TV industry. The web is world wide. Why can't they take advantage of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I buy DVD's. I buy CD's. I buy games.
What bugs me is that they aren't doing anything to solve the apparent problem that's worth trying to pass draconian laws that shatter privacy and the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
You're a musician right? You're selling your music right?
Where are you selling it? How are you selling it? Who are you even?
You obviously really care about this stuff, but here you are in a thread that hundreds of people are reading, and you're not even linking back to your music site?
Here's the thing, I'm a musician too. In two clicks you can go from my comment here to my bandcamp site where people can buy my music (this has happened a few times already when I've posted here).
But I'm not a great musician.
I'm ok and, thankfully, some people like my songs enough to support me and pay me some money to cover things like producing limited run CDs and paying my petrol to gigs and the like.
But I am not good enough to have been picked up by a label. That's the way it is. Pre-internet I would have made the square root of fuck-all from my music - I know this, because that's what's happened.
Instead I've got many more people listening to our music, I can do gigs further afield (when I can pull my finger out of my arse and sort it out) and I've got people who'll pay for downloads.
So a load of people have downloaded and listened to it for free?
You know what I say to them?
Woohoo! Enjoy! Hope to see you at a gig sometime!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,623107,00.html
McCartney I believe founded his on label did he not?
If I look around I am certain I can find Sting, stinging labels too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
You cite artists who had long enough careers to survive the first contract. Once you are an established artist the deals are better because they know you can always walk away and get a better deal somewhere else.
Those artists you mention will have had a 2% royalty on their first deal (information supplied by Pete Townsend of The Who).
Richard Branson built a huge company on the basis of offering a better deal than the established labels - according to economic and business theory that should not be possible if those deals were already fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
All I can say to that is, don't be so anonymous AC. Tell us who you are so we can happily avoid paying you or listening to your music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Recently though I don't see crowds of people screaming or stalking musicians anymore do you?
There are no more superstars is there?
Keep threading on people and you will have your wishes come true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Illegal was the tactics used to make it illegal in some countries.
The Pirate Bay should keep any proceedings they so get and the reason is simple they don't exploit any artists they exploit users by offering them something they need and that is a place to share, and share they do, if it is illegal or not, should never be a matter for the Pirate Bay to decide, specially because not even morons like you would be able to say with certainty that something is infringing or not, and that in a nutshell is why copyrights is dead and why people don't, won't and can't respect it, because nobody understands that crap not even people educated on the art of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Will Be Fine
yeah, the internet magic is awesome... no contracts, no payments, nothing... how is replacing on injustice with an even greater injustice progress?
labels pay artists tens of millions of dollars a year... how much is the pirate bay paying artists? oh, whats' that? Nothing? The Pirate Bay pay's artists nothing? Wow, Really?
So what would I prefer? Getting paid or not getting paid. I think I'd chose getting paid?
Hmmm... contracts you say? Where can I get a contract to get paid by the pirate bay and other sites operating illegally? Oh... what? There are no contracts?
Hahhahahaah I get it, that' funnnny. You can't have oppressive contracts if there are NO contracts! hahahaha! knee slapper...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
See my post above, I've already made more money via the internet than I ever would have from a label.
Funnily enough, I choose getting paid as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
hmmmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
So anyone who is a musician should have instant success?
You should really read this http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2003/09/12/how-record-labels-exploit-bands/
as it explores the awesomeness of how labels screw over artists for money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
The public has made that choice for you already and you don't get a say in it, just like people don't get a seat on the committees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
But I digress.
Yes, I choose to accept how the world is working and use that to my advantage. Not accepting this doesn't seem like a good solution to me, let me know how it works out for you.
As to the Pirate Bay, dude, I would love to be significant enough to figure on the Pirate Bay. That would tell me that people actually liked my music enough to consider sharing it.
But it one of my friends lends a copy of my album to a friend of theirs (and they take a copy) i don't expect them to pay me either...
I appreciate that there's a lot of stuff on this thread and you probably haven't read my previous post, so I'll clarify. I'm an average musician. That's all. So yes, I work a day job, I will always work a day job. In the label model that's all that would be open to me. In the new model I can get a few fans and a few contributions from across the globe that both helps me cover a few costs but also gives me a nice little boost about what I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
so no offense dude, but you are a hobbyists. you are not reliant on the income of your music to pay your bills. so, yes, I have hobbies too, but I don't pretend to be a working professional in those fields.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I dont think anybody has the right to instantly make money doing what they love, I know a woman who LOVES knitting, shes horrible at it, but she loves it...you couldnt sell her "Sweaters" to a man dieing of hypothermia on the south poll in winter....but she loves it and if she could she would do it for a living....(last blanket she made was...not square...lol)
please if your a musician let us know who you really are(with some proof) so we can avoid your works if you hate us "freetards" so much...
note: I duno who decided "Freetard" should be used for anything but free software foundation/stallman types... thats where it originated after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
There is nothing wrong with being an amateur, and there's nothing special about being a professional. Get over it, you entitled whiner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
So why do people pay to eat at restaurants?
And why do 65,000 go to Giants Stadium, when they could watch football free of charge in Central Park?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Because, instead of sitting around whining that nobody's paying them, they offer things worth paying for - even though people can eat much cheaper at home? they offer value for money instead of trying to get "protection"?
The restaurant analogy is always particularly amusing to me given that so many of them go out of business on a regular basis. Yet, plenty make a lot of money, and plenty still open every week. I don't think I've ever heard a restaurant complain about those "freeloaders" cooking at home or attacking Wal Mart because they sell cheaper microwave meals.
Nobody who just wants to be a pro musician is entitled to do so without earning it, just as nobody can simply open a restaurant and expect instant profits. Even good restaurants go out of business if they;re not managed properly.
"And why do 65,000 go to Giants Stadium, when they could watch football free of charge in Central Park?"
How many sit at home and watch the same game for free (or a least as part of the cable/internet package they already have)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
But the label folded a couple of years ago. Why? Because they didn't have a business plan. They / we had lots of ideas about how to try and sell our product but at the time we still thought the product was little plastic discs sold at gigs to students.
But it turns out that students aren't buying little plastic discs anymore. (well, for the most part, turns out that if you make them a bit special then they will - but I only really discovered this afterwards).
I digress again, apologies.
The "choice" never got taken away from me, the market shifted and the choice was never there. We were too slow to realise that.
So yes, I'm a hobbyist, as are an absolute shed-load of other musicians who've worked out that there's a democratisation of the music market coming.
The barriers to entry are constantly lowering, more people competing for the same pot (at best, more realistically a shrinking pot when you factor in video games), that means fewer stars and, yes, fewer professionals.
No-one is entitled to be successful, and no-one is entitled to be immune from the effects of change. You can try and adapt or try and fight it, but there's coming up to 3 billion people on the internet now and I'd rather be friends with them than fighting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
honestly, It couldnt hurt, I would buy your stuff if i wasnt DBMF....I have linked a few friends to it already :)
another place that could get you some traffic is demonoid, a few bands got a good traffic and sales/donation boost from the noid.(one of them due to me telling an old friend whos a member to toss his stuff up in mp3, flac and vorbis....they got enough to upgrade their sound gear for local gigs!!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
The IP laws that grant you certain monopolies is for the people to decide if they agree with it or not.
The internet will not help you with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
How fashion people survive?
How McDonalds become one of the biggests restaurants business in the world?
How Coca-Cola managed?
Why do you believe you are entitled to a monopoly that is so out of reality is now threatening democracy itself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
OK, let's talk copyright, but you can't negotiate copyright while you're taking the product without paying for it.. not even once.
Everyone on your list gets paid at least once.
Are fashion items free, is coca cola free, the happy meal?
So why should records be free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Who ever said that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
/ also demands proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,829124,00.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
"So why should records be free"
They shouldn't, there is physical stuff in a record.
A digital copy, however, doesn't cost a darn thing.
Kickstarter is successful because it moves things to commission model, where you get paid (once) up front and anything else is gravy. This is also the model for work for hire, but that will lock you out of your own work.
The commission model is very likely to be the future of copyright industries.
Picture this, a new artist makes a work on the side and releases it while asking for donations so they can spend more time making future works. Once they have a decent fan base and have proven themselves, they make a transition to crowd funding sources and full time artistry.
Before you go saying that someone can't make a living that way, I'd encourage you to check out some of the more popular webcomics. It generally takes a few years, but the donations eventually reach a point where they can quit any other job they have and go full-time artist. There is no onus on anyone to ever pay beyond understanding that paying means the artist keeps making art, and that is actually sufficient.
No, you won't strike it big going down this road, but you also won't have to play by the rules of a corporate entity or worry about being dropped or scammed. There is no big leap of faith, as you just need to get a small sample out there every so often to start attracting fans, and you'll have a solid metric to judge the transition.
It is harder for established artists to make the transition, but most already have the fan base and it is more finding the way to make the connection that is difficult. Kickstarter and social media tend to work pretty well though. I'd recommend advertising a social media outlet of choice if you're going to make the jump over, and then doing an event to introduce the donate button.
In short, you're still watching the water and the dam, when El P has specifically stated that he's looking to build a boat. He wants to talk with a carpenter, you're directing him to masons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Wow, where in the hell did you get that idea from? Are you really that bloody single minded. "Everyone who disagrees with me, will never pay for music"? Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Wow, where in the hell did you get that idea from? Are you really that bloody single minded. "Everyone who disagrees with me, will never pay for music"? Is that it?
That's a ridiculous twisting of my comment. Why am I not surprised.
many times I've read Techdirters say they wont pay for music. They don't like the label system and they don't like copyright terms.
So if you downloaded the EI-P record without buying it, and you then claim artists shouldn't be paid for not working (aka copyright), how are you even paying EI-P once, for the WORK HE HAS DONE?
Just answer the question without twisting my words to suit your agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I don't think you realize that a fucking plastic disc is just another form of merch, piracy has not stopped you or anybody from selling your shit, so do it and stop bothering others with laws that not only are ridiculous they are also harmful to society since they are the same tools used for censorship and a threat to civil liberties everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
If I were to download El-P's records, it would be to find out if I like it. If I like it, I'm more than willing to pay money (as I have in the past, and how I'll do things in the future).
But for the record, I've completely stopped buying movies and music, but also stopped downloading movies and music all together in my year long ban of anything to do with the recording industry and the movie industry.
I have enough books still to read (most from independent writers, where I've bought their (e)books through Amazon, with the author's affiliate links (thus they make more money that way), and from CreateSpace and Lulu.com), and I'm all the richer for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
False dichotomy, which not only assumes that using TPB will not get you paid, but that using traditional methods will. History is full of people with different experiences than the outcomes you assume...
"Where can I get a contract to get paid by the pirate bay and other sites operating illegally?"
Why do you think you need a contract to get paid by a system offering you free advertising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Is the Pirate Bay charging them fees for distribution? No.
Is the Pirate Bay providing them with an advance which they must fully recoup otherwise the artist has to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying back the advance? No.
Is the Pirate Bay making money off of the artist and charging them for services (but not paying for said service with the money they already made)? No.
Is the Pirate Bay's income supporting the FREE distribution mechanism for any artist to disperse (or fans or enemies or people who just want to share and do care or don't care) via ads but charging the artists nothing more? Yes.
Is the Pirate Bay loaded with money and charging users fees, in addition to ad-revenue, and raking in the cash? No (see the damn court case - proven they ain't got the cash IFPI said they did).
So when you have a free service, that is free to you, should you be paid in addition to being provided a free distribution service? NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Is the Pirate Bay respecting artists. NO.
Is the Pirate Bay sharing the profit with artists. NO.
The pirate bay is NOT a free service, nor does it provide the artists with any service. The Pirate Bay is a FOR PROFIT company making 100% of the money and paying artists 0%.
If anything you are saying is true, than why not let the artists decide for themselves? Hmmm... probably because the pirate bay has no business without illegally exploiting artists and keeping 100% of the money... that number again is the pirate bay keeping 100% of the money and paying artists ZERO percent.
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Hey, TPB sounds better than this:
"For instance, if the artists grosses $3 million dollars, that translates to $750,000 of profit for the record label. How much does a band member get? $4031.25.
But not really. Because the band is also $14,000 in debt to the record company. So for a deal which gave the label $750,000 profit, the band profits approximately $5,000. Put another way, after all expenses are accounted for, and everyone but the band and the label has been paid, of the remaining money 99.4% is paid to the label; the remainder is paid to the artists."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Pirate Bay 100%
Artist 0%
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Fees to Pirate Bay by artists or users for distribution service: 0%
Therefor, percentage of operating revenue delivered to users or artists for using the service free of charge: 0%
Hence, profits to Pirate Bay: 100%
NOTE: a company that keeps 100% of its profits does not necessarily mean they are rich, case and point, The Pirate Bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I'm glad you understand math.
The Pirate Bay = 100% of Artists Money
Artists on TPB = 0% of the Artists Money
Massive Rip Off of Artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
I'm glad you understand math.
The Pirate Bay = 100% of Artists Money
Artists on TPB = 0% of the Artists Money
Massive Rip Off of Artists.
Ahh, excellent point. I hadn't heard that before. But... do they have contracts with The Pirate Bay? Please, educate me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
So what money is the artist's, actually?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Yep, definitely a horrible wretched hive of scum and villainy there. /s
Tor is an internet protocol. The Pirate Bay is a search engine. Go after the host of the infringing tracker, for there is the distributor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Labels don't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
how many?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
http://torrentfreak.com/5000-artists-line-up-for-a-pirate-bay-promotion-120405/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
try again... FAIL.
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/smells-like-pirate-desperation/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
and just being on there, without being featured is advertising, because the sites GLOBAL and known GLOBALLY, no region lockouts, no gatekeepers, i mean other then the few govts who have followed your flawed logic and ordered tpb banned, and even those bans are useless...because they are easy to bypass....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
And what rights are they not respecting? Infringement by pointing PEOPLE (the subclass could be fans and another subclass could be non-fans who just want music numbers because that's impressive to chicks).
The Pirate Bay is not a free service? Citation needed on that one. Since when does the Pirate Bay send bills to artists for distributing their work?
How much money does the Pirate Bay make? The court case proved they make barely enough to survive.
Who gives a shit if they are for profit, their profits are covering the costs of free distribution! Yes free to any artist who wants to.
True, some don't want it and they are lucked out because people (some might be instantiated objects of the sub-people class known as "fans", or in Java, class Fans extends People) share. But those sharing who ARE fans or who WOULD NOW BECOME fans WILL pay if they feel to do so.
Again it does NOT matter if the Pirate Bay is for profit, they use their profits to pay for their service, which is NOT charged to the users. If it were, then you could have a point, but since TPB does NOT charge for the service, it is NOT a requirement that they PAY artists for their FREE service.
And quite with the "FAIL" bullshit, you sound like a damn kid. Grow up. Attempting to sound witty when you argue does not improve your chances of winning an argument.
And again, TPB IS free and DOES provide a service - it's called exposure and distribution, and many artists ARE taking advantage of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
Pirate Bay = 100% of the Artists Money
Artists on tpb = 0% of the Artists Money
RIP OFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
http://techcrunch.com/2008/01/31/the-pirate-bay-makes-4-million-a-year-on-illegal-p2p-file-shari ng-says-prosecutor/
so yes, the pirate bay makes $4m a year and pays ZERO to the artists by illegally ripping off the artist. why do you support artists getting ripped off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
The social leeches you call artists didn't do the work, why they should get any of that money.
If I work the land I am entitled to the fruits of that work, if another guy comes in and do better than me is his not mine, why should you or anyone else get some?
I don't even believe that somebody playing the same song as you should pay you anything, they should get their money from the people who wants to pay them and not have to deal with people like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine
The actual courtcases showed a rather different number all together. But why let facts get in the way of a good shilling argument.
Here is the original article, that yours linked to:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-team-charged-080131/
And it paints a different picture than what TechCrunch made of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Will Be Fine
You've got that right. All Black Eyed Peas albums are major human rights violations and should be prosecuted accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all relatively new and we are trying our best to navigate choppy waters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, then they create instead of throwing a tantrum like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Notice that actual stealing, i.e. shoplifting, isn't tolerated - but people still make concessions to its effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This deserves to be plastered all over the walls of Congress and every boardroom across the whole of the United States. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same could be said of the fans
This same thing could be said about how the fans/public are treated. The copyright industry is doing their best to turn the public into criminals and locking down content for forever minus a day. We get rootkits, DRM, FBI warnings, license servers that may or may not be up when we play our video games and so on. All this for people who actually paid for their content. As for the pirates, well they circumvent all this stuff so it is of no bother to them.
The artists are on the other side of the equation and often have little to no control over the situation as well. So what we are stuck with are the middlemen making a lot of noise trying to exert control over the rest of us. So what needs to happen? The middlemen need to be eliminated. They are quickly becoming unnecessary overhead and yet they have all the power. This needs to end.
Hopefully what you will find here is not a bunch of freetards and pirates, but people who are fully willing to pay for content and Mike advocating ways for artists to make money through smarter, modern business models.
BTW, thanks for stopping by, it is always nice to hear from someone on the other side of the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw your fans...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
Just so you know by doing this I have now heard of you and will check out your album, and if I like it I will purchase it, if not I wish you success (and I may still buy it to support you because you spoke out reasonably and intellengently and should be rewarded for it in a time when so few do).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free is the right price for music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
Just checked today's top 10 search results for mp3raid, where my songs are always found, making $ for everybody w every click-everybody but me of course.
Interesting that all are either from a major label, or an "indie" financed and distributed by a major. Bet the same is true for most p2p'd movies. If the labels and studios are so hated, why, in 2012, are they still responsible for the creations everybody, especially p2p'rs wants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
Why do you think we have "fast food" and Itunes, so people can get what they want right away.
The labels cater to this mentality, then when they can't control it, they whine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
You are not entitled to unlicensed content. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Why not cater to that, provide consumers what they want when they want. You may say that denotes entitlement, but...I'd feel pretty entitled if it was my money being invested into something I was unsure of.
Yes, labels do have the right to what they produce and they also have the right to whine about things. They also apparently have the right to screw their artists out of royalties when it suits their needs (http://gizmodo.com/352762/riaa-wants-to-cut-artist-royalties-to-9-apple-wants-them-at-4-artists-jus t-want-to-eat). And sue people. Attempt to strip copyrights from their artists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA). Sue people who did not even pirate music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing).
Sorry, but I could care less how piracy affects the labels considering that they take most of the earnings of the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
If an artist doesn't want to sign with a label, they shouldn't. If they want to give their stuff away, they should. It's their choice, but they shouldn't demand that it's my choice also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
get paid up front for your work rather then working on a % basis or per play/sale basis.
I know the reason I wont take salary again is that I got tired of working long hrs for no overtime as I watched others get paid over time....
I get where your coming from but, you cant blame this all on "piracy", your made a choice when you signed your contract, you agreed to take what they felt you deserved, same as artists who sign with major lables accept they are going to get bent over and dry humped by their lable...
if your pissed/fed up with whats happening, change fields, write jingles or music for videogames, something where you can get a per job payment or royalties without much worry about somebody "stealing" from you.
I do really hate to tell you this, but very few "pirate" sites make a profit, most of them make enough to keep the site up, and very little extra...ad revenue is pretty pathetic even on a very popular site, I was once staff on a VERY popular gaming site/forums, even with ads on both sides and in posts and tens of thousands of views a day, we could barely cover the cost of maintaining the site.
the fact is, you have been lead to believe that these "pirate sites" make millions when most dont even make thousands.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
get paid up front for your work rather then working on a % basis or per play/sale basis.
I'm happy with the current pay model. You seem unhappy with royalty payments for musicians, so I'm just pointing out the flaw in unauthorized downloading is that we the artist doesn't even get paid once.
Another flaw in the general opinion here at Techdirt is that you ignore the army of self releasers and small independents.
When you download that music against our wishes (AND you do), you don't pay the artist even once. You are angry at the middle men and the copyright system, but when an independent artist asks you to support their recordings by paying them directly, many of you still download the music without paying. The OP EI-P is a clear example of that. pay the guy once. Support the artists who have sidestepped the 'gatekeepers' and put up their own money to make their own recordings.
Until you do, all the diatribes against 'gatekeepers' and artists being paid for doing no work are just uninformed BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Well, when the automobile came along, it was a new product that made the old one obsolete. Illegal p2p is not a new product, it's a new means of distribution. It still makes $ from the same product---my song--but diverts the income stream into someone else's pocket. Those who invested their time and $--that would be me-- into making that song get nada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
It would be interesting to see their balance sheet so you can see just how much money can be made from hosting a filesharing site.
Why is P2P illegal? It simply made CD's semi-obsolete because it is more efficient and that's what customers want. Same with the automobile, it's what customers wanted because it was more efficient to get from one point to the next.
You make it sound, and maybe that's what you believe and if you have proof that would be great, that all filesharing is like ads for beer using your music. Your song generates people's desire to want beer (hypothetical here - bear with me) and the beer company makes millions off of you, but paid you a small license, say in dollars, so they made 1-million times your license agreement. And now you're unhappy (this is actually true in many cases, artists were shafted by advertisers whose products flourished because of a groovy song -- and vice versa, like Baltimora's Tarzan Boy thanks to Listerine).
But most filesharing sites (The Pirate Bay included) make just enough for the operators to earn a living, IF that, and pay for bandwidth and hardware costs (upgrades and capital costs). They are not rolling in the cash like you think. If I am wrong, please point me to a non-IFPI "study" but instead indictment information that shows real data proving that these sites are making mega dollars off of your hard work.
Also note that you're not paying for the distribution they provide, so if they make $1 off of you, is that worth fighting for? Imagine said sites decided to remove your works, now no one can hear unless there is a provider who can arrange payola to terrestrial radio, license and distribute to the remaining stores, delivery to places where the infrastructure isn't like most major US cities, etc... Imagine the cost, I know the costs are high, look at import prices for music.
Do they have to be? Will you, as a potential paying customer, purchase that import? Will you even know about it because of the lack of promotion?
Switch back to your songwriting self, will you even earn anything after the promo and licenses are dealt with, plus delivery costs, to distribute your work to potential paying customers?
There are no fees with filesharing. Licensing needs some revamping. Labels ARE negotiating with various sites and most are bankrupt because of the labels. Yes that's true, search P2PNet.Net and TechDirt.com for examples (they have a descent search feature) on companies that have started up and planned to give greater share to artists only to be bullied out of existence or into giving the lion's share to the label, who in turn gives pittance to the artist and songwriter.
If you have documentation otherwise, please share it, but this is what I've read.
It really sounds like you feel everyone is making money off of your work, and therefore they must be hugely rich, which is not necessarily the case.
One artist blogged a very long 5-article rant against iTunes (among other things) because iTunes takes 30% of the sale. Labels don't do that, so the person says, and labels provide so much more (not from my reliable sources -- ie: UMG does NOT provide fuck-all to a popular Canadian artist, no A&R men/women, nothing, no promotion, just use the guy as a cash-cow) than iTunes.
Not quite, iTunes a) centralizes the music b) makes it EASY to acquire it and c) made it affordable and even d) gave consumers the option of choosing what they wanted (ie just the songs they wanted - no force on album purchase).
iTunes prices were pushed by the labels, no shock there, even the mighty Apple was pushed around by the media giants of Warner/Sony/etc..
Rapidshare was crippled because of the labels. So who's profiting off our your back? It isn't the majority of the filesharing community or the people who operate/develop the networks and hardware to support the protocols.
It's the labels dude, seriously, and their lawyers.
Have you tried looking into other ideas beyond licensing? Other avenues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
the pirate bay = 100% of artists money
artists on tpb = 0% of the artists money
why is your response to one injustice (labels) to support and promote an even GREATER injustice (piracy)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
It wasn't enough. Apple is loaded enough that they won't be sued out of existence and smart enough to play ball with the majors, but not strong enough to say "piss off."
Every tech company who tried to make sharing possible and gained any popularity was attacked by the labels.
A UWaterloo student invented a filesharing program and it was not even released and she was attacked and threatened.
What you see is the people who tried to be reasonable with the labels, were threatened and decided against being exploited for THEIR WORK (ie software development) by people who did NOTHING to create that (ie: labels). After negotiations fell through, they were left alone, chose to profit as much as possible to pay for the lawyers for the lawsuit that would have left them broke.
That's the reality. They were also cocky. They also developed software that helped to spread Linux. I'm sure Micro$oft was against Limewire for that too!
It's not all "let's rip off the artists" and if you truly believe that, you won't make it going forward. You'll fade out. If you are that good of a songwriter, you do not want that and I would hope you'll listen a little more here.
Things are not as bad as you think but you can't go forward with how things were. You must adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
do you support the pirate bay ripping off artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/08/riaa-denies-copyright-misuse-in-the-wake-of -antitrust-monopoly-accusations.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
Have you partnered with any performance artists, beyond T's and seats, for such things at Kickstarter? For example, say you partner with performance artist X and you both work out a deal to share the proportions of the Kickstarter album record/tour promo funds.
Is this possible? There are other ideas, such as getting noticed by having your performers advertise who you are, the writer, the creative brain. Then fans can connect with you, you don't expect much, but a few fans connecting and you be open and honest, could result in new offerings. Such as your own kickstarter fund and you license your work to other performance artists.
Yes I am brainstorming, but that's what needs to happen. Try it, if it does not work are you any worse off? No. But you could be better off if you do try. Gone are the days when you had to rely on ASCAP or SOCAN and labels to license your work.
With regards to the popular stuff being shared being major releases, well that makes total sense doesn't it, if you take someone unheard of and spend millions advertising on them, they too will be popular on the networks. People checking it out. Of course if the material is not what they want, well it doesn't get bought. That happens even without filesharing.
Regardless of how hated they are, people fileshare what they know, hence why obscurity is far worse than piracy.
And I guess some feel that by filesharing, even if they hate the labels or the artist, they are somehow "sticking it to the man" despite the fact that those particular individuals would not have purchased anyway.
Of course some would have purchased but because they have it for free won't bother. Others get it for free and make purchases anyway. And still others don't bother getting it for free and just purchase. It's about pricing and perceived value. It isn't just "well it is free, so who would pay for it" because if that were true, no one would be renting movies (which many still are) or going to cinemas or buying music (CD or download).
Think of the whole situation as a multi-variable control system with many feedback loops, each with their own gain values, that change dynamically and are not predictable (especially to major labels). You have so many inputs, so much complex processing with multiple stages and internal feedback loops, the outputs are virtually impossible to predict with any real certainty.
Rather than bash the labels or whine and complain about the "state the industry is in" I am urging you to open the discussion of things to try.
And actually try them, really do, remember if you do a half-assed job you get half-assed results. Put your heart into it like you do your craft and you will get results, especially if you are on the tops of the song lists.
Cheers, Writeem, and don't be discouraged. I am not saying living in a dream world and say "all will be OK" either, just try and be open to suggestions, especially new and different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
How much time have you spent on this site?
The income that the filesharing sites earns goes straight into bandwidth, infrastructure, and a little for a few people running (not thousands, there were 3 for the Pirate Bay). And let's not forget someone already posted the proof provided by the indictment, ad revenues for the Pirate Bay were $106k US. Consider the bandwidth costs and hardware upkeep costs, split the remainder 3 ways and that's their income.
Are you certain that the income stream is severely diverted to infringers and enablers? You remember the works for hire law that took some 3yrs to be repealed? The labels did that dude.
People are NOT profiting off your back like you think they are, at least not the filesharing crowd.
Have you and the engineers/producers/songwriters, the 99% basically, considered other means of income? No, not day jobs, but instead a) charge artist x dollars for mixing or recording, or for your song b) write new songs and sell to other artists or mix their work or add them to your promotional list.
Think of the painter, if he/she wants more $$, they paint more. It's different from the license, which you don't have to dismiss, but let's face it, the public has a difficult time with being paid for the duration of copyright terms. It isn't much, no, but I've heard the "my kids, my estate" complaints too. Okay, why again am I supposed to pay for the estate of someone's family because they created a piece of work?
I write code and design systems. I don't get paid each time the system is used, so if I want more income, I have to develop more systems and write more code.
Perhaps the "royalty" model is failing to keep up with the times. It worked "well" under the false-scarcity of copies world, but we're beyond that.
If you are a great engineer, you'll get more bands for you to record, they'll pay you $x. Want more $$, you'll have to work with more bands, promoting yourself.
Same goes for songs. If you are that great of a writer, can you consider not licensing and instead breaking the mold and selling the right to perform for a fixed cost.
I realize it isn't the same and that's now how it is done, but the means of distribution isn't the same either. There's more than just radio. And there's far more people writing than before as they now have a chance.
You have to compete with that, but you can't say "I'm getting free distribution but they make tonnes off of me so they shouldn't."
What if we started charging all artists and users for content shared on the network. That would be like... if Napster was purchased by UMG in 1998/9. All users had to pay money to upload and download. All artists had to give up a portion of their royalties for covering the costs of exposure and ability to be shared.
That's the monetized version of filesharing. That's not what filesharing is about and those profits under that imaginary system (assuming any competition was killed) would be real profits, much like the Pirate Bay was accused of.
That world would be far worse for EVERYONE, songwriters included, you'd get even less than you do now. You could still argue the operators of Nap$ter are profiting off of your work, but you'd be actually correct. The labels would have much more $$ and total control.
Hell, if they didn't like your work or figured it wasn't valuable enough financially, they'd just drop you and you'd get nothing. You'd have no where to go, no Pirate Bay, no BitTorrent, not P2P, nothing. Your songs would not be on any list, anywhere.
That's what it could be like and if the execs at UMG and the like had their way, that's what it would be like. No competition from pesky indie artists. Nothing. Just fake "indie" labels owned by the majors, with 2% royalties, and unrecouped artists. That's where the unrecouped artists go.
"If I go cold I won't get sold, I'll be put in the back, on the discount rack, like another can of beans." Billy Joel, the Entertainer.
The future is open for you right now and the other 99%, but not if you hold hope into the old ways. Or worse, if the labels buy their laws and kill all competition, you'd be totally screwed as there will be really no where to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
The brave new world is a lot like the old one, only now the lords and masters are big search, the ISP's (who are coming around slowly since they now own content), advertisers, payment processors. Funny how little has changed as far as who actually creates the music and films that drive the traffic. Tastes haven't changed, everyone still wants great content from major labels and studios, they just don't want to have to pay the cost of creating it. If I'm a dinosaur, I'll lumber off the tar pit. But as long as my songs are everywhere is Cyberspace, making $ for everyone but me, I'll bellow now and then. Thanks for the exchange, no one's mind was changed I'll bet. Off to the studio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Really bad assumption!
Statistically most programmers write bespoke code that is commissioned by the end user. If you want to make an assumption then that should be it. That particular business model is entirely consistent with the views expressed. If musicians worked that way (and many do) they would not have a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
No royalties mandated by laws in attempts to keep some income for their kids.
I am paid by customers developing a product which their customers have ordered.
No where in our contracts is it written that I must be paid a royalty so my kids can not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Of course they do.
People save a ton of their entertainment dollars by downloading all their music without paying for it. That money goes elsewhere, on products that can't be taken without negative consequences to the taker.
There is also a huge flaw in the argument that a musician shouldn't be paid for doing nothing. When you download an album you aren't even paying once.
Any album is hard work, and has a cost, sometimes considerable. So you don't like copyright and royalties, but that doesn't excuse not paying the initial price. In reality, you ARE taking work without paying for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
1) The money goes elsewhere into the economy
2) It may not go into the label's pockets, but it goes into the economy none the less
3) When you download an album - now you're assuming 1 download != 1 sale
4) You are listening/viewing without paying for it, the question is, would you have otherwise if it was not for free? Not necessarily, such assumptions that "yes they would" are as ridiculous as "no one will buy if it is free" because that's been proven wrong already (see: iTunes).
5) No one denies the hard work required, but they deny that since free distribution is available suddenly the non-existing profits (above paying for people who host it and developed the service) somehow should be distributed to the artists.
6) What part of my argument says a musician should be paid for doing nothing? Where did I say that? No where - strawman attempt!
7) When you download an album and later buy it, you DID pay. Though if you believe the RIAA that's two sales that should have happened, once when you downloaded it for free and once when you bought it from a store (online or physical). That is NOT reality!
8) Any album may be hard work but is that hard work worth it? If I spend six months, 12 hours a day developing an application and it crashes randomly and corrupts data, who will buy it or even use it? They may download it, try it and remove it. Just because you put hard work into something does not make it worth some value that you decide it is.
9) How many albums have you bought for just one or two songs? How many of the other songs were filler? Tough luck? Ugh, no, that's "fuck you consumer." And that's another reason (note: "another reason" is not the same as "the only reason") why people don't buy albums but instead buy tracks.
10) If a band releases questionable material TO YOU are you willing to gamble on their next release? Or would you rather download it and feel relieved when it sucked. And the same applies to the opposite, you download for free and wow it was awesome, so you next time buy it.
11) Case and Point: Apparitions, downloaded free, later bought the album along with many other albums (CD's - I'm old school). Case and Point again: U2's last few albums, heard tracks after downloading, didn't like, didn't spend the money, not pissed that I was "ripped off into buying this sold-as-amazing but completely disappointing music."
12) For those who don't care or who want more, if you want to make more $$$ on copies that are available for free, give them a reason and they'll do more than pay the $10 for the album where you get $2 if you're lucky. They'll buy the packages you offer, not just a damn tShirt, look at different packages (NIN, John Freese, Amanda Palmber, etc..) offered.
Look, you can't go against the flood gates so stop lavishing in the past and look at ways to go forward, and don't do it half-assed. And most of all, don't alienate your fans, remember if fans paid they should not be lectured! They'll quickly turn into non-paying fans if not non-paying-non-fans!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
You don't get paid to write songs? Why not? Recent stories about "writing camps" for hit singers talks about how songwriters are getting tens of thousands of dollars for a single song.
Perhaps you need to try actually selling your ability to write songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
why do you support the pirate bay ripping off musicians, and why do you hate songwriters and artists so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
And when did you stop beating your wife?
Seriously: we don't support TPB "ripping off musicians" and we don't hate songwriters or artists. We help them make money. Of course, for that to work, you have to actually be able to comprehend some basic concepts like "English." Seeing as you've failed that, and are compensating by making the same moronic accusation over and over again, I think it's clearly established that you're not anyone worth paying attention to.
What's really sad is that your trolling and thread hijacking killed what could have actually been an interesting discussion by an artist that we actually like and who we're happy to see is able to make money (just as we're thrilled whenever we see smart artists making lots and lots of money).
You might want to look at some of the case studies where we've helped highlight all sorts of cool ways to make money. That you appear to have melded your mind to a single business model which is apparently failing for you would suggest that perhaps you just suck. Good musicians who treat their fans right don't seem to have too much trouble making money. Thus it seems pretty clear that either you suck as a musician or you're an asshole to your fans. Or both.
Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
We don't need to invent new cool ways. We make things, just like other people.
We make songs, we make records.
If you like the record you buy it. It's too easy for all concerned.
What you think? You like a record you download it without paying and maybe buy a t-shirt, or I take you out for dinner next time I'm in town?
Too complicated.
just support the music you like by paying the artist directly for the record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
"What you think? You like a record you download it without paying and maybe buy a t-shirt, or I take you out for dinner next time I'm in town? Too complicated."
Too complicated for you maybe, but you don't get to make all the rules. It's a market, you have to have something more to bring to the table. Sorry about that, but that's how it is.
Give us a link to your stuff, you've put the effort in on this conversation, let us have a listen, maybe we'll like it, maybe we'll buy it, maybe we won't.
Since starting commenting on this thread I've had 8 downloads of my last album, 5 free, 3 paying. That's �15 in my account that wasn't there before. It could be in your account too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
if your good i will buy more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
How do I "discover" you? Do you get airtime on Dutch radio? I rather doubt it. Are you on Dutch Spotify? I doubt that too.
Then tell me, how do I, a potential fan, find your music before buying it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
One thing to mention: For most people, this is literally impossible. They can't pay the artist directly for the record, they're forced to pay the record label. And, as I'm sure you know, record labels are about as trustworthy as Exxon Mobil in the public's eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
We make songs, we make records.
If you like the record you buy it. It's too easy for all concerned.
Yes, that would be nice: the point is that the market is telling you that it doesn't want to buy the record any more.
At one point, people bought horse carriages too. Then the market changed. You can complain about it all you want... or you can adapt.
What you think? You like a record you download it without paying and maybe buy a t-shirt, or I take you out for dinner next time I'm in town?
Too complicated.
Yeah, just keep making horse carriages. Making cars is way too complicated.
That's the point. You keep arguing that you want to keep a world that doesn't exist any more. I don't know what to tell you. I agree, it would be nice for you if you could go back to that world. But you can't. So what's a better plan? Bitch about it? Or learn to adapt?
On top of that, this new world is opening up all sorts of opportunities for other artists, and creating a world where middle class artists can make a living. That seems like a good thing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Why do you guys support the pirate bay ripping off artists and making 100% of the artists money, while paying the artists 0% of the money?
why do you guys hate artists so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
No one needs to reply to you anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
No one needs to reply to you anymore."
not at all, you guys are just incapable of stating why you support tech companies like the pirate bay ripping off artists WORSE than record labels?
I guess you could argue that your innovation has been how to screw artists worse than ever before in history, nice job.
So it appears you are the one's who just can't give a response to a simple question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Perhaps because nobody's doing such a thing? Why do you have to lie about the positions of others simply to have an argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Actually, if the link he posted below is any indication, he's being argumentative because he's a complete loon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
We make songs, we make records.
If you like the record you buy it. It's too easy for all concerned.
What you think? You like a record you download it without paying and maybe buy a t-shirt, or I take you out for dinner next time I'm in town?
Too complicated.
just support the music you like by paying the artist directly for the record."
I find this rhetoric from certain "musicians" infuriating, because it's a flat out lie and a scam.
Music fans have NEVER "just paid the artist for the record." EVER. Movie fans did, yes, but music fans did not.
Ask the Violent Femmes, who sold a few thousand copies of their first record in the early 1980s - kind of a bust. But it was dubbed and redubbed by teenage fans over and over again to the point that they developed a huge following. The Femmes' career was made by kids dubbing cassettes of that first record. This happened in the early 1980s. People didn't start doing this 12 years ago.
I feel for El-P's post, but a hip hop artist knows better than to imply that fans not paying for hip hop music is "new" or even "troubling." Hip hop careers are made on mixtapes and bootlegs, and they always have been. You make the money after the free music becomes popular. His dad knew that and so does he.
Consider the radio. Switching channels when a commercial comes on is geting music for free in every sense of the word. In the music industry, free is the norm.
People only bought or buy records or CDs to control when they hear something and because of a record or CD's worth as a collectible commodity. MP3s are worthless as commodities but the control issue still sells digital copies. Piracy is and always will be a nonissue.
That's a big difference between the music industry and Hollywood that isn't often commented on. The MPAA is in fact being forced into a sea change in how it obtains revenue, because the norm for 80 years was pay per view (movie tickets, rentals, etc.). I hate Chris Dodd but when the studios express fear, I feel them. The RIAA and this musician are NOT being forced into a sea change. They are trying to force US to make one by treating songs themselves as the commodity we morally "must" purchase. No sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
It is also the conveniently common assumption/interpretation of ideas presented here and on other sites. That is, ideas that don't involve the previous status quo method of paying artists.
You too would need an open mind, one far beyond what has been demonstrated in this very long thread thus far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
You're not a performance artist, I get that, but you ARE a songwriter and therefore an artist.
What people are trying to make you aware of is P2P does not need to be monetized for you to earn income.
It appears easier for you to assume that we simply do not understand "how it works" when we've pointed to articles already (not myself specifically, but this site has them) that explain how the older models work.
I guess it makes it easier for you to say "you just don't understand" rather than "I don't accept your proposals" as a means to go forward.
The choice is yours: sit and complain and say we don't get it, or move forward and try different things you have never done before, which is what we've been trying to explain.
Others are doing it, songwriters included, and they are making a living. Sure, you can pull the obscurity means they are not making a living argument, but it's wrong. Just because you have not heard of them, does not mean they are not making a living, even as non-performaing songwriters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Did you negotiate P2P licensing with performers who earn royalties for P2P?
Nope, they are not raking in the cash thanks to P2P itself either.
So no, you don't need to monetize P2P.
Wilco is doing just fine. Take a few minutes to search on this site for bands, case studies, songwriters who are adapting and finding ways to earn a decent living without monetizing P2P.
For some reason you think that because files are shared they would undoubtedly be purchased in the same numbers if those pesky P2P sites/networks were taken away. Not going to happen. People won't flock to purchase music in the same numbers because before the internet they didn't do that, and now there are many other things to spend their money on.
So really, it does not matter who the popular songs are when no one earns a penny based on that.
The flaw in the royalty system that you're stuck with, ASCAP and SOCAN is they estimate, they don't do aggregate data collection and honest value transfer. They just say "oh this is popular, give them the majority of our royalties collected, regardless of the true standings."
So yes you DO need a new model and a new way of looking at things. If you try to monetize a P2P network, you're going to take money from those who shared their stuff and who would rightly deserve fractions of a penny for every transfer.
It will be distributed just like ASCAP/SOCAN, some guess calculation and thus an unfair distribution of funds. So that does not work either!
What have you tried that's different from the days where licensing was the ONLY option because of the stranglehold on distribution of content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Yup, Wilco may not be in the top 10, nor Amanda Plumber, but they still earn a decent living!
So if your objective is to be completely loaded, then you'll have to write and sell your songs while retaining all rights and try connecting with your fans.
Or you can just continue to argue and hide behind the "you don't get it" mentality that keeps you stuck in the past.
You know what happens to those who refuse to adapt? They go the way of Eatons. No adapt, no exist.
And if you reply "how?" then you haven't been reading, which is understandable, you've been biased into believing no one understand your situation but you so no one can help you. But you want help, but you refuse to accept that it might involve change, change in your thinking.
Put it this way, you're not going to put things back to how they were, so it is you who has to adapt. Sorry.
If I get material I am happy with ready, and I get my voice up, I will gladly release it and use every possible idea presented here to earn money from it. Then I can get better equipment and sound better and spend more time writing than working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
Sure thing. For what it's worth, I've said repeatedly that "give it away and pray" is a bad business model. I've worked with a bunch of songwriters to try to think up better biz models, but am always happy to learn from more people. And I talk to lots of folks in the industry all the time with an open mind, so am happy to hear what you have to say.
Hit me up via the "contact us" link on the site and I'll get back to you. Or you can try to email me. My email address is at the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pubVZSbaz0 The problem with that is straight up emails sometimes get lost in the shuffle. If it comes in via the official contact us link, then even if I miss it, someone else here can bug me to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
there's no question at all about what the pirate bay does.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8003799.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today, an artist has been ripped off
This goon has stolen from El-P. He doesn't owe him money for his work, but he ripped him off just the same. He used El-P's work to distribute his own without providing compensation, and worse, he muzzled El-P's right to communicate with potential customers. This is more offensive than even the worst (false) characterization of what The Pirate Bay does.
Someone on another site recently stated "file-sharing is this generation's Prohibition." I disagree - online piracy is this generation's Satan-worshipping child molestation ring. It doesn't exist the way hysterics describe it, and every time I read a spammed TechDirt thread, I become more and more anti-copyright for one and only one reason - I am careful about the company I keep.
I can't believe the **AAs or Comcast believe they are getting their money's worth from this kind of shilling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Today, an artist has been ripped off
that was, Im sure their intent, to stop speech from somebody whos taking a tact they find offensive(not hating on p2p and blaming it for all the worlds problems.
El-P came here and posted something quite mature and respectful, he was humble and kind, and he got shit on by the very people who claim to have his best interest at heart....the content industry....where the rest of us have shown him nothing but respect....
I think by the actions of those in this thread you can infer who the nice guys and assholes really are.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
writeem and AC
this would help us greatly to avoid anything you have had a hand increating, and by extention would insure we don "screw you" out of those millions of dollars your sure p2p sites all make off your hard work.
let me be clear, I pay for music I like, If I dont like it, I delete it, I refuse to buy music from RIAA lables unless its 2nd hand(used), I refuse to buy ANYTHING without hearing it(been screwed by your ilk to many times)
I would really like to know what music your involved in, so i can spread the word that you hate anybody who uses p2p and hate anybody who dosnt pay you for content you in anyway had a hand in creating.
I also dont feel that lifetime+70+years is a valid or useful copyright period, I dont feel somebody should work once and get paid for the rest of their lives AND their kids should also get paid....thats BS.
Sorry but being paid over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
for working once decades ago is BS, why do you people think your so special you should get paid more and for longer then people who work day in day out for a living?
please I must ask again could you please list the songs and names we need to avoid to avoid your taint....i mean content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate?
I'm just pointing out the faulty logic many of you use to excuse ripping off artists.
So to conclude:
Even when an artist uses their own money to make music, and cuts out the gatekeeper, many people pirate the music (example EI-P)
You don't like copyright's length and scope, but you are unwilling to pay artists even once when they go DIY and release a record.
You don't think anyone should be paid for doing something they love, even though many Apple employees love technology, many nurses love caring for people, and soldiers love serving their country.
You are fighting (supposedly) for freedom and democracy. However you refuse to abide by the law while you can't change the music business model democratically, and you trample on all musicians freedoms in pursuit of your own (financial not creative) ideals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate?
People constantly say to you, that people should get paid once, not forever and not have rights that can be abused left and right, just because you feel you are entitled to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate?
Simple question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate?
Also McDonalds get pirated by everybody and they still manage to make money, every restaurant in the world can be pirated and they still get paid, every carpenter, every engineer, every dentist, medic gets pirated and they still get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate?
How everybody else inside society gets paid since they have zero protection and don't have monopoly rights?
What Mike does must profoundly upset you, because he shows to anybody who want to hear that even without a monopoly people somehow still managed to get paid through a lot of other means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate?
Simple question.
So you're saying that the moment someone "pirates" or freely downloads your record, you can never expect to be paid ever again? I guess that means no one has ever paid for a single record, since any incidence of piracy means that you can't ever be paid, ever again. Since every record out there has been pirated at least once it means everyone from Britney Spears to Gene Simmons has never received money for their records.
You are such a douchenozzle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate?
Uugh. No I'm specifically not saying that. I'm asking a very, very simple question. I get it that this community is not a fan of copyright. And the statement made is that artists shouldn't be paid when they are not working.
Soooooo. I do do some work, and I record my album. If you download it without paying me, because maybe you say you don't like copyright, how do I get paid for the album? The work I actually did?
Very simple question. It would be nice if someone could answer me once instead of making up a second question I never asked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate?
Here's the thing, piracy or no piracy, selling little plastic discs is a shrinking market. An increasing number of people don't even own CD players anymore so you're effectively creating an infinitely abundant product.
And you're doing it in an environment where the barriers for entry and being constantly lowered and the competition is getting more fierce.
If your product isn't selling, or the market isn't there, you have to find a product or a market that is.
Seriously, read the case studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate?
2. liciencing (including the money megaupload paid per download)
3. advertising
4. sponsorship (after you build your brand)
5. custom gigs (ala dan bull write a song for you)
6. shout out (as in buy my song and i will put your name in my next thank you song-- again ala dan bull)
reverse the transaction
use the current piracy as a promo for your next KICKSTARTER campaign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate?
For the record: not everyone here agrees with that general sentiment. For example, I do not. I find the (minority) of posters who say stuff like "stop feeling entitled and get to work" to be pretty reprehensible.
But I also know that the people who say this are not defending piracy. In fact, they are providing their own answer to the question you just asked.
That answer is that you get paid for your labor. In other words, you get paid before you do this:
I do do some work, and I record my album.
The Kickstarter model is a great example of this, but there are tons of examples from the traditional music industry that also work. Work-for-hire musicians, "songwriting camps," etc.
And, incidentally, nothing is stopping you from selling your music, even if it is pirated. Your music being available on The Pirate Bay won't prevent you from putting your music on iTunes or Amazon, it won't prevent you from selling CD's at shows or in stores, etc.
Incidentally, this is the main difference between pirate sites and major labels. According to the RIAA, 90% of music does not recoup; and until you recoup, the recording artists earn nothing from record sales. So, in the end, neither one pays artists; both help artists only by providing promotion. But major labels prevent you from selling your own music; pirate sites don't.
The people who get your music illicitly are the same people who are more likely to pay for music from legitimate sources. Every single independent study has shown that pirates spend more on music than non-pirates. There is no reason that someone who downloads your music will not pay you in some other way (merch, live, different music, etc), or even buy the same music through legitimate channels later.
If they don't do it after they've downloaded your album, they wouldn't have done it if they couldn't download your album, either. One involves piracy, the other does not, but either way, you don't get paid.
And either way, that's nobody's problem but yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate?
You don't like when people complain that nobody else have those kind of "rights", you don't care how those things affects others and so you keep trying to defend the indefensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate?
I don't like copyright's length and scope, and I'm also unwilling to pay El-P because I'm not interested in music outside of what I already have. Yet, I'm also considered a lost sale.
>You don't think anyone should be paid for doing something they love, even though many Apple employees love technology, many nurses love caring for people, and soldiers love serving their country.
Is anyone here advocating getting technology, healthcare and national security for free? For that matter, two of the latter are already handled to some extent by taxes that everyone pays. Your analogy is thoroughly horrible.
>However you refuse to abide by the law while you can't change the music business model democratically
You mean like how life + 70 years were introduced democratically at the majority vote of the citizens? Are you really claiming that artists democratically wanted contracts that rip them off?
You shills are such a bunch of douchenozzles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate?
our "democracy" is a farce, its become a corporatocracy, society has made it clear for years that the bulk of us dont like or respect copyright as it stands, yet the govt dosnt listen, why is that?
its because big content has the money to pay them to ignore us OR they are stake holders in big content.
next you will say "vote them out" how exectially do we do that and vote in somebody whos not a wholey owned subsidary of the same industry when big content backs both sides?
and on a note, soldiers enlarge love our country, but they dont love killing and dieing for it nore do they love being maimed (mentally or physically) they dont love being seen/though of as murderes by the bulk of the non-us world...
please again give us your name, and the works you have been involved in so we can avoid them, if you cant do that, you just admitting your a lier and shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love the hypocrisy of the techdirt community censoring posts, how very SOPA of you! So much for you supporting freedom of expression.
So score card at end of day... TechDirt supports The Pirate Bay ripping off artists, and TechDirt censors posts. So much for open.
Wow, just wow. The truth must be hard to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some people use it to flag comments they disagree with, but it's not unavailable.
Censorship would be if no-one could even see that you posted something.
Score card at the end of the day:
We do not support The Pirate Bay ripping off artists, also we do not think that The Pirate Bay is ripping off artists, that's a fabrication on your end. So 0 points for you.
Techdirt doesn't censor posts, again, misconstruing on your end: 0 points.
The truth is, that you are unwilling to think in the new economic truths.
Fact: pirates have always been there, they are now only more on the forefront. But there have ALWAYS been pirates one way or another. And one man's pirate is another man's only source for content. (Region locking is so retarded in a global world)
Fact: You can't put this cat back in the bag, but you can use the piracy to your advantage, if only you take some time to learn how to communicate with that community.
Fact: artists that have embraced the new economic scales of unlimited supply are doing better than ever before.
In fact, independent artists are having more opportunities of getting heard than in any time in the history of music and movies. And there are many ways of getting funded, with Band Camp, Kickstarter campaigns, and the many audio stores. And they can use (and do use) TPB and other file sharing platforms as promotional vehicles for their own wares.
Fact: Any legislative efforts done by governments worldwide are spurred on by the gatekeepers of the content industry, that are deathly afraid of these new models, because they are losing their advantage of being gatekeeper. It's not done to battle 'piracy', that's only an added bonus and only a talking point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if it's not censorship why hide it in the first place? it's not very OPEN of you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For that matter, what's your name? What's your artist name? What skin do you have in this discussion? Why are you refusing to tell us any of this? [sic]it's not very OPEN of you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So under SOPA you would be able to click on a blocked website and be able to view it normally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repeat after me:
I will not feed the troll!
I will NOT feed the troll!
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meowing Cat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]