Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

from the being-open-and-awesome dept

Tue, May 22nd 2012 3:06pm — Mike Masnick

Back at Midem, I did a presentation talking about the importance of being more open, human and awesome is a key component to standing out against the (growing) competition these days. I used the example of Louis CK, but Amanda Palmer would be just as good. After all, her Kickstarter campaign is getting tons of attention for raising a ton of money, leading many to wonder how she did it.

But as the numbers keep going up, it's also raised a second question: where is all of that money going? And so it should come as little surprise that Palmer has opened up and explained in fairly great detail where the money is going, and highlighting that even if the campaign ends up at a million dollars (a real possibility), a very large percentage of that money is actually going back into the "product" being offered. Here's just a snippet, but you should read the whole thing:

7,000+ high-end CD-books & thank you cards cost about $15 a package to manufacture and ship. that’s $105,000.

1,500+ vinyls & cards, at about $20 to manufacture & ship…about $30,000

2,000+ art books (bearing in mind the shipping on those, every time they need to be shipped from the plant, to the distributor, to YOU, plus the signing, is killer) will cost us roughly $80,000.

PLUS we have to factor in about $15-20k to pay our design team to actually design all this stuff, and to make it super-duper amazing and worth your money. those of you who supported mine and Neil’s last Kickstarter know what i’m talking about here. this CD is gonna be a super-deluxxxxxe work of art.

the neil and kyle books are going to cost us a LOT of dough to create…let’s just throw out about $100/copy for about 100 copies…that’s 10k.

if we sell about 100 turntable packages: ordering the tables, paying the artists to paint them, shipping all that stuff around: ballpark another $15k.

arts & crafts/7-inch packages, if we sell about 300 of them, adds about another $30k (we’re planning on spending roughly $100 each on the packaging for those, including not only the vinyl but the fun arts-and-crafts activities. oh, and postage/shipping x5)

There's a lot more, but it adds up. In the end, she basically notes that the purpose of Kickstarter alone isn't to make a profit, but to invest in all of this awesomeness such that it can help sustain things going forward:

ONE…we are committed to doing amazing things for all of you who pledged. sure, it’s going to cost more to make things extra fancy (and for us to ship things for FREE all over the world), but making this stuff amazing IS THE POINT. if i skimped on making the packaging and actual products INCREDIBLE, i’d be an idiot.

and

TWO...a LOT of our income for the next year WON’T COME from this kickstarter. it’ll come gradually, over the following year: from the touring show, from the merchandise we sell on the road, from money we get in donations when i make the tracks available online, from the money i get from iTunes from the people who are sometimes lazy (like me), and so forth. it’ll be a slow burn, like it always is.

Some might think it's incredible that she could "make" a million dollars, and not come out super wealthy out of that process, but as she noted: "that’s FINE with me. it’s almost even THE PLAN." Why? Because it helps set up a variety of things for the future. This is important. As much as we've praised Kickstarter, which is completely awesome, it's not a business model by itself. It can be a piece of a business model, but it's an "event" and a limited time thing, rather than a sustainable ongoing revenue stream. Amanda is using Kickstarter wisely (obviously) not to just raise a ton of money and throw it all away (like a major label advance), but as a way to invest smartly in an awesome product while also setting up a way to keep earning money in the future.

And she's doing all of this in a characteristically open and human way.

As we said, being open, human and awesome is a key way to succeed these days, and Amanda's doing it better than just about anyone else out there.

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: amanda palmer, crowdfunding, midem, open human and awesome
Companies: kickstarter

224 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Billsup, 22 May 2012 @ 3:17pm

Hey
It's better than working for the labels. If she were working for them and raised $1,000,000 then she'd currently be in debt to them for about $1,250,000. This approach puts her ahead by a quarter million dollars, even if it's not money in her pocket - because it's not money out of her pocket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re: Hey
  how would label money be "out of her pocket" if she didn't actually raise the money, the label did? How is this really any different? Well, simply because there's no overhead to that party, but my guess is, if we run her numbers, it net's about the same, the only difference is she has more control on how the money is spent, but that does not appear to be a net gain... so all things being equal, she now has to invest more of her time and energy away from being creative to manage the business end of things, I'm really not sure that's a net win.. and even if it is, it's still in the same camp as the radiohead and nin experiments...
  
  here's the numbers from FOMC on how well DIY artists are actually, really doing... after ten years of "tech empowerment"...
  
  "Statistical Proof That DIY Doesn't Pay"
  http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120523team
  
  don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger... take it up w/ DMN, Resnikoff and yer buddies over at The Future Of Music Coalition...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Hey
    Looks like things are looking "up"
    
    http://digitalcowboys.com/2012/04/12/towards-more-equitable-payouts-for-musicians-and-songwr iters/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hey
      these are royalty rates for cloud services, but at this point I think the establishment of fair, ethical, licensed and legal is what is most important. rates can always be renegotiated later.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 3:19pm

I guess you could say....

*puts on sunglasses*

Amanda's giving her fans a palmjob!

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 3:25pm

Amanda's fans help her by bringing in new fans.
One of the main reasons why her kickstarter project ended up over-funded, was also because the social media fan-marketing campaign brought in new fans. Even I donated 10, and I hadn't even heard of her until last week.
I've noticed this is a trend in all over-funded kickstarters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 3:38pm

It's NOT just Amanda's fans bringing in new fans
When I get some time, I'm going to have to get some of her music for a "test drive." If it turns out I like it, chalk up another fan, drawn in by the publicy.

Eric Flint is right, lack of exposure, not piracy, is the Great Enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 3:44pm
  
  Re: It's NOT just Amanda's fans bringing in new fans
  I did the same before donating.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron deOliveira, 22 May 2012 @ 3:38pm

ebook
She should write an ebook chronicling all of this with calendar dates. June 1st. Got quotes from artists for turn tables June 5th. Laid out Kickstarter campaign. June 12. Launched campaign. June 16th. Promoted campaign. June 23. Sent personal thank yous to doners. Etc. Etc.

That kind of information could be valuable to others trying to follow in her footsteps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:45pm
  
  Re: ebook
  I think a study like that of the top 20 kickstarter music campaigns would be very instructive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 3:56pm

The point that is summarily missed...
For the people that don't get it, I'm going to try to explain this in a somewhat different manner.

Amanda Palmer does not rely on copyright. Period. She relies on an intuitive sense of what works for her and what works for how she'll make money in the future. The Kickstarter is a tool to have people invest in her and her works and she is reestablishing a connection. But people are going to miss one thing.

Out of 30 years of copyright law, why have the major labels never (and I do mean never) done anything in regards to this transparency? Why do they continue in this cloak and dagger world where the only ones allowed to have copyright protection are the ones that have done nothing to deserve it?

Time and time again, we have to settle with the "copyright holders" screwing over artists because they can't think of a world where artists are in control of their money.

Yet when it's pointed out, who are the ones ridiculed? That's right... The artists themselves.

Their fans are locked up.

Their business partners are charged criminally with no purpose but to destroy their business.

In essence, the criminals are the ones choosing where innovation takes place.

So here is the point for those that would miss it. Your copyright law is outdated.

Give us new technology and no more copyright. Leave it as a push for Progressing the Arts and Sciences instead of censorship. That's all anyone wants. Not the shoddy mercantilism you continue to espouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re: The point that is summarily missed...
  So artists should be forced to entertain you for free unless they tell you exactly what they spend all their money on?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 4:17pm
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    Thank you for showing how to miss the point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 4:18pm
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    Thank you for showing how to miss the point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    Ok, where did he say anything like that? Troll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 4:21pm
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    Wow, that's so disconnected from anything that the posting or the comment you're replying to has said that it is spectacular! Congrats, AC!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ophelia Millais (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 3:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
      Although he focused on copyright being an unnecessary part of the process, Jay implied that the Kickstarter model is giving fans a sense of value and investment that they don't get in the traditional processes, and he implied that the major labels should have this kind of transparency. I believe the AC's reply, hyperbole aside, is rhetorically asking "if people are supporting these Kickstarter artists because they approve of how the money is being spent, then doesn't it follow that artists/labels/etc. who don't disclose such things are being deemed undeserving of such support?"
      
      ...to which the answer is a big shrug. Creating a sense of value and investment in the mind of the consumer is always a challenge. One way to go about it is playing out on Kickstarter, with artists like Amanda Palmer basically putting a detailed business plan up for consideration, establishing a forthright brand, and making overtures to connect with fans, not just treating them as suckers or potential adversaries. It seems to be working rather well; people like this new paradigm.
      
      Does it follow that any other approach to marketing will fail? Of course not; it only means there's competition�suddenly the more opaque methods of marketing don't seem to have as much appeal to consumers. Anonymous Coward, if you want to interpret this as "consumers increasingly shun artists who use traditional marketing, and embrace those who are relatively transparent and direct," you certainly can. If you want to characterize it as "you people say artists who don't disclose expenses should work for free," then you imply that you think people shouldn't be more supportive artists who successfully foster a greater sense of value in the minds of consumers. That makes you sound like an idiot, frankly, someone with sour grapes because people are choosing to spend their money in ways that don't benefit you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ophelia Millais (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 4:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        I suppose more succinctly, I could've said "artists who fail to instill a sense of value in buyers of their art do indeed deserve to struggle to sell that art, or to 'work for free', as you put it."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        so would say an artist who charts at #1 in billboard does not instill a sense of value in buyers? It appears that they instill a great amount of value, but that doesn't stop the illegal exploitation of the artists work.
        
        Also, this argument fall completely flat when applied to music software, which the consumer is using expressly because it has value, but yet, companies and corporations profit from the illegal exploitation and distribution of that software.
        
        the argument does not hold water.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        Instilling a sense of value and selling a large number of some product are two different things. Pet rock anyone???
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        because people buy large numbers of things they don't value?
        
        for a time, a lot of people valued pet rocks, and payed for them accordingly, so your argument is false.
        
        and, again you didn't respond to how your argument fails on music software which the consumer clearly values as a useful tool.
        
        you are gonna have to come up with better arguments...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 4:41pm
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    They should be forced to face reality.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prisoner 201, 23 May 2012 @ 12:29am
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    "So artists should be forced to entertain you for free unless they tell you exactly what they spend all their money on?"
    
    So you are saying all kittens should be murdered?! Why would you say that?!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
      I'm saying this:
      
      pirate bay = 100% of artists money
      artists = 0% of artists money
      
      can you prove any differently? why would you support a system that illegally exploits artists worse then the labels ever did?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 4:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        Are you still on this track? You can't even explain how you came to such a fallacious conclusion, but you stand by it. Since the Pirate Bay doesn't even charge for /shit/, how are they getting the artists' money? Where is this magical money coming from? I'd like some of it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        seriously? do you not understand how the internet works? How is Facebook worth 100 Billion or whatever? What are they charging you for? ... Seriously? You are on TD, you can't really not understand how online Advertising works?
        
        but just in case...
        
        http://techcrunch.com/2008/01/31/the-pirate-bay-makes-4-million-a-year-on-illegal-p2p-file-shari ng-says-prosecutor/
        
        http://popuppirates.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 23 May 2012 @ 6:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        Hmm. An out of date article as "proof" that the pirate bay makes millions. Again, facts aren't your strong suit are they? [He ask rhetorically, knowing the answer is a most definitive, "No."]
        
        You are aware when The Pirate Bay trial was going on, that same prosecutor was UNABLE to prove that they were making millions, right?
        
        UNABLE TO PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW. I'll just stop right there while you try and wrap your head around that. What a prosecutor says is irrelevant. I say you're an idiot. Can I prove it? Yes. [Points at your previous comments.] Did the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were making millions, while in court? No. End of story. Win for me. Another loss for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        I guess you missed the conviction and jail time sentencing? hmmm... Was that for basket weaving?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:52am
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    When you shine a light, the dark runs screaming.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 10:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
      "When you shine a light, the dark runs screaming."
      
      - very true, good point.
      
      http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/why-arent-more-musicians-working-professionally/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        It's kind of funny you live in this fantasy world where apparently sales never plateau, or dip. It does happen elsewhere to other companies, so what makes the record business so special that they should not have to face what every other company out there deals with?
        
        On top of that...I'm a graphic designer, when there's tons of graphic designer sin my area applying for jobs, then my chance of actually getting the job I want goes down. I guess I should blame that on piracy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        the facts are pretty clear, the numbers don't lie, no matter how much spin you try to put on it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        Yeah, the number don't lie...music sales are down for a number of reasons, not just one that suits your egotistical stance on this blog.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        oh lord... the numbers don't lie no matter how much spin you attempt to put on them...
        
        http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/sf-gate-blunders-facts-about-recording-industry-a nd-piracy/
        
        why support the exploitation of artists that is worse than labels? your methods are not working for artists, this just in from DMN, it would be funny to call them trolls given mike was in court with them this week...
        
        http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120523team
        
        it seems at least resnikoff has some integrity...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        Why support greedy corporations that try to reduce artist royalty, extend copyright over an artists work and so on?
        
        You're just as bad as the pirates...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 4:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        By the way, sort of funny that in the article he links to about the proliferation of piracy and it's impact on music sales, the New York Times writer said this - "Piracy�s effects on the economy as a whole are hard to measure"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        "as a whole" so by your logic it's only a crime if the money leaves the usa? so if someone creates an illegal business, that destroys a legitimate one, it's OK if the money stays in the economy? that's some logic for ya...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        Not by my logic, I was pointing out the gaping hole in your own when you claim piracy is this huge threat to music sales.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        Piracy is causing a huge hole in record sales
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        It sure is. That's why my iPod cost the industry $8 billion dollars.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        ask tenenbaum...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
        That's explained by statutory damages in the video.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Moondoggie, 23 May 2012 @ 2:24am
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    So artists should be forced to entertain you for free unless they tell you exactly what they spend all their money on?
    
    Wow. Clearly missing the point. Is that a new fad?
    
    So, like, anyway during the time before W-War I,artist and entertainers travel around and ENTERTAIN PEOPLE. It's also THEIR JOB to ask money from them THEMSELVES. And they don't complain how much they get.
    
    Now that "traveling around"(through the net) and asking money from fans has been made easier, thanks to the net, they should try doing the old tradition.
    
    So my answer, which has nothing to do with my small speech spam above is: Yes. U mad?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re: The point that is summarily missed...
  where has Amanda said that she does not care about copyright and is surrendering her? I must have missed that part, citation please!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:13pm
    
    Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
    where has Amanda said that she does not care about copyright and is surrendering her?
    
    Again, you're missing what I'm saying.
    
    What the argument for the past 30 years has been about is more and more copyright enforcement. Yet, Amanda is finding methods that don't even use copyright enforcement in any way, shape or form. So extended copyright, extended enforcement, extended censorship is not working to make artists money. This is proof from her actions that more copyright has not worked for her, nor has it worked for the RIAA that tries these techniques.
    
    Until the trade industries actually employ better services that customers want instead of the empty fight on piracy, they will continue to lose money and waste time on a non-issue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 22 May 2012 @ 4:42pm

20 bucks a record?
Lies. For all that don't know what it costs to make a record I will tell you. It's a number I want everyone to think about when someone is charging you 30 bucks a pop for them. It costs no more than 6 bucks to make a record. This is from a real good pressing plant, and a great paper manufacturer for the jacket and insert. Add a 1000 bucks in there for some vinyl mastering and this is what you get... 1500 x 6 + 1000 = 10 grand. Add 5 bucks per for shipping and you get $17,500. Saying it costs nearly double that is an insult to people's intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 4:52pm
  
  Re: 20 bucks a record?
  Lies. For all that don't know what it costs to make a record I will tell you. It's a number I want everyone to think about when someone is charging you 30 bucks a pop for them. It costs no more than 6 bucks to make a record.
  
  You should look at the details of what she's offering. It's much more than just "a record." In fact, she notes that if she went the cheap route she could make a lot more money herself, but she's investing in art and other high quality things to go with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 11:33pm
    
    Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
    at least "anon" has some integrity. when labels break even and try to explain the same economics it's "greed" but when the artist is spending the same money, to do the same things, to pay the same people, it's a "win."
    
    I like that Amanda is honest about how the money is being spent, and the costs of employing people to facilitate the services she needs. This is kinda like Amanda starting a label of her own, which is nice.
    
    I just find the double standard of the TD community a bit ironic. If the same numbers were posted by the RIAA you'd claim they were lies and that they were pocketing hundreds of thousands in profits.
    
    But here we are, and you can see that developing an artists is not cheap. How many other artists (without the previous backing of millions in major label marketing) will be able to do what Amanda has?
    
    In the end, this is pretty much a different spin on the same experiment Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead did, and not to be repeated, and not accomplished by artists of lessor stature, nor without the help of those previous major label funds.
    
    This is invalidates the argument of "fixed costs" on digital goods. It's great to make a profit on marginal costs if one is not on the line for the fixed costs... Cuz I'm sure that TD will also champion the illegal exploitation of Palmer's work for whomever can profit without having actually investing in the work itself, which is both sad and unethical...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      at least "anon" has some integrity. when labels break even and try to explain the same economics it's "greed" but when the artist is spending the same money, to do the same things, to pay the same people, it's a "win."
      
      Huh? Can you explain where a label ever opened up this way and I described it as "greed"? Citation or admit you're making shit up.
      
      I just find the double standard of the TD community a bit ironic. If the same numbers were posted by the RIAA you'd claim they were lies and that they were pocketing hundreds of thousands in profits.
      
      Again, citation or admit that you're making shit up.
      
      But here we are, and you can see that developing an artists is not cheap. How many other artists (without the previous backing of millions in major label marketing) will be able to do what Amanda has?
      
      But this isn't just about "developing an artist." If you've followed Amanda's career (and clearly, you haven't), she's built an awful lot of her fanbase *after* she left the label (and plenty before she was on the label). Separately, she's done a bunch of other things in the meantime.
      
      The reason *this* project is so expensive is because she *chose* to do an expensive project. It's misleading in the extreme (nothing new for you, I can see) to suggest that this is "the cost of developing an artist." Not so. This is the cost of putting together this massively expensive project. That's it.
      
      In the end, this is pretty much a different spin on the same experiment Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead did, and not to be repeated, and not accomplished by artists of lessor stature, nor without the help of those previous major label funds.
      
      Ah, bullshit. We've highlighted tons of indie artists who have done cool things and built up sustainable business models on their own. Corey Smith, Jonathan Coulton, Matthew Ebel, Jason Parker, Motoboy. I could go on and on.
      
      This is invalidates the argument of "fixed costs" on digital goods. It's great to make a profit on marginal costs if one is not on the line for the fixed costs...
      
      Uh, exactly the opposite, Sparky. What Amanda is doing here is *selling scarce goods*. We've said all along that that's where the money is. Sell the scarce, and that's what Amanda is doing.
      
      Also, we never said to ignore fixed costs. We said that fixed costs don't matter in PRICING -- and that's clearly true with her offering here. After all, the digital album itself can be had for $1.
      
      Cuz I'm sure that TD will also champion the illegal exploitation of Palmer's work for whomever can profit without having actually investing in the work itself, which is both sad and unethical...
      
      See, the thing is, I know Amanda, and she's smart enough to know that what you're discussing isn't exploitation. It's fan promoting her work, and she knows that she'll profit from it.
      
      Your failure to grasp such basic concepts explains why you're having so much trouble adapting. If you actually read what we wrote instead of imagining up strawmen, you might not be such a complete failure in life.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 12:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        hmmmmm a little defensive there huh? must have hit a nerve... if the fixed cost doesn't matter in pricing you've got a few of your own pissed off in this thread over $20 albums... take it up with them...
        
        if you want to know how record label economics work, you should read this, it's getting a lot of buzz online within the community of musicians for it's insightful look at how the new exploitation economy is worse for artists than the previous label era...
        
        http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-po st/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prisoner 201, 23 May 2012 @ 12:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Nice dodging.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 12:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        dodge this... 99% of all tunecore artist make less than minimum wage... where's the model that's creating a new middle class of professional musicians?
        
        http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111123tunecore
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        So, you're afraid of the direct questions being asked of you and the points actually being raised. Yes, we get it...
        
        Intellectual honestly to you is like sunlight to a vampire - you'd disappear in a puff of smoke if you allowed yourself honest discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        And how many of those tunecore artists would have made any more at all on the old model?
        "where's the model that's creating a new middle class of professional musicians?" Where, exactly, is it written that being a professional musician means you deserve a middle class income?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Ah, DMN, the Daily Mail of music news.
        
        Moreover, how can you expect to get paid if you will nto work for it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        web = fail for musicians, take it up with Ted Cohen and Midem...
        
        http://blog.midem.com/2009/12/breaking-through-the-noise/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        take it up with Ted Cohen and Midem...
        
        Ha ha, priceless. Here's the last paragraph of that article:
        
        The point of my post today is to motivate you, not to intimidate or dissuade you. The good news is that you are finally in charge of your career. The bad news is, that face in the mirror, it�s the only one to blame if things don�t go well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        It's kind of funny that the article supports the web as a way to connect to fans, as TD has also encouraged.
        
        But even more interesting, and something you failed to read was the bit about how there's is too much music being pushed out. Guess what happens to a market when it gets flooded? the price for whatever commodity goes down, which means artists get paid less.
        
        Welcome to the blue collar world, you no longer get to make it by on 100k a year.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        doesn't change the facts that the web is not working for artists... don't shoot the messenger, this just in from DMN today...
        
        "Statistical Proof That DIY Doesn't Pay"
        
        http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120523team#MMMDRpcRicicGbW39xCltA
        
        hahahaha priceless indeed...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 6:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Mike has said the DIY approach doesn't work for everyone. It's kind of funny that you're too ignorant to understand that any business venture involves risk. You'd rather keep the entitled attitude that you deserve to be making 100k each year for putting out the same crappy sounding music.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Mike says a lot of things to contradict himself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        99% of all tunecore artist make less than minimum wage...
        
        And in the 90's, 100% of those artists would make nothing whatsoever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        that is false, citation please!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        dodge this... 99% of all tunecore artist make less than minimum wage... where's the model that's creating a new middle class of professional musicians?
        
        Those artists are making some money now, whereas under the old system they would have made nothing. That's the point. You seem to ignore all the folks who were completely shut out of the old music business.
        
        Now some people can make some money and you're hating on them? Why do you hate artists so much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        that's BS mike, pure and total BS. citation please of singed artists who literally were never paid one dollar, show that to me...
        
        artists are, and have been paid advances, and they're called "advances" because they are advanced against royalties. artists make no money from the pirate bay illegally exploiting their work, songwriters also don't get paid from the pirate bay.
        
        mike, record labels pay artists MILLIONS of dollars a year, the pirate bay pays artists ZERO dollars a year.
        
        If you want to talk about hating artists, you are the who advocates for the illegal exploitation of their work.
        
        I applaud Amanda, no hate there. I you respect artists rights, why don't you let them decide how their work is distributed and who get's to profit from it.
        
        When there are contracts and payments from the Pirate Bay you'll have a point, but until then you are supporting a system of illegal exploitation that is WORSE than the labels.
        
        So how is it that your solution to one injustice (labels) is an even greater injustice in piracy. Why do you have to support the illegal exploitation of Amanda's work by companies and corporations who have made no investment in her work?
        
        Do you really not understand ethics or the law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        You still don't get it...you talk about a system i.e. the internet that "exploits" people, yet you ignore the "system" in place by big wig record labels that also exploits the artists.
        
        Unless you are going to provide a solution to the problem, then why even argue?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        the solution is an ecosystem where the artist is empowered by the Freedom Of Choice. Piracy removes choices by the illegal exploitation of the artists work, to profit the new gate keepers. Don't kid yourself, and the new gate keepers are waaay worse the the old ones.
        
        Old gate keepers = access to distribution
        New gate keepers = access to revenue from distribution
        
        Same game, new players, worse terms. I say support artists rights to chose who THEY want to be in business with... let the free market work properly without illegal exploitation. What is every one afraid of? Artists might actually chose the deal that pays them the best? Meanwhile the pirate bay pays ZERO...
        
        oh, and for mike, asking for a citation about artists getting paid by labels... talk to your buddies at DMN and FOMC who just published this report
        
        "Statistical Proof That DIY Doesn't Pay..."
        http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120523team
        
        which seems to be consistent with what Amanda is saying as well.
        
        do you guys actually bother to even consider that there is information that you might not agree with, that is actually, factually true?
        
        If you can get your head out of the sand long enough to stop supporting unethical BUSINESSES like The Pirate Bay, maybe you could actually do some good... for artists, for real.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Then you're asking for the moon and for just about every company with it's hand in media to change it's business model to benefit the artists. In theory, sounds nice, but in reality it's naive to think that any of them would actually go through with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        how is asking for ethical and non-exploitive business practices asking for the moon? why can't the pirate bay license music legally? Spotify is... Is it fair to Spotify that The Pirate Bay is able to provide the same content without any costs, and still gets to profit? Of course not.
        
        This is simply about legal and ethical business practices versus illegal and unethical practices. The people profiting from exploiting artists illegally (and worse than labels) simply do not want to respect artists rights, and that's the truth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 4:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        ...um, because you're asking multiple companies to change their business models overnight for the benefit of what they would see as "the minority." Even you can agree, labels don't treat their artists well, and their main focus has always been money. They will do anything to keep the income at a steady high and what you're asking for would cause havoc for them. That's why changes on such a mass scale happen through small steps, you'd be ignorant to think it could just "happen."
        
        I'm not in support of Pirate Bay, yet you keep bringing it up as if they're any worse than the labels.
        
        There's a spectrum, and a mid point. One one end you have piracy, on the other label exploitation. Find a middle ground and stop bitching about one side of the spectrum.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        If you are not in support of the pirate bay how do you then remedy the pirate bay?
        
        and, as far as impossible solutions... YouTube has over 48 HOURS of content uploaded every MINUTE, please provide for me Five Live Links of Porn to prove that filtering does not work...
        
        just five... go!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 5:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        That's like asking how do you remedy crime.
        
        Porn links are reported by users...and it's fairly obvious when it is porn. However, DMCA takedowns happen all the time for stuff that isn't even copyrighted...that law is working perfectly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        reported by users? 48 hours of content per minute is reported by users? Seriously? I don't think so. If you look at the total volume of DMCA claims, versus the false positives it's like .0001%, in other words, statistically irrelevant...
        
        but these guys might have the solution... engineers switching sides... it's about the money...
        
        http://www.piratepay.ru/en/pp
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Citation? Oh wait, you don't have to put forth proof cuz you're special
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        just show me five links of active porn on youtube and I'll conceede.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 23 May 2012 @ 6:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        I find it highly telling that you wrote "48 HOURS of content uploaded every MINUTE" WAY after we have an article with a direct quote from Google saying there is now 72 hours of video uploaded every minute.
        
        If that doesn't say how big an idiot you are I honestly don't know what does.
        
        Literally. An article with an actual figure posted the same day saying it is much much more and you still can't get even that simple fact right. Lol. It shoots down all your credibility (as if you had any) and calls into question the rest of your "facts" and "proof" and "evidence" (what little there is, which to be honest is none, and sorry but linking to thetrichordist is very much not citing a legitimate source... I looked at that site, rantings of an idiot would be more descriptively honest).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        thanks for making my point even stronger! 72 Hours per Minute and probably increasing from there, and all I'm asking for is 5 links to porn... go ahead, prove to me it's impossible by showing me just 5 links to porn on youtube... 72 HOURS per MINUTE... and nothing get's through... this is about will, not technology. Humans make technology. Humans make Laws. Humans enforce laws. Ask Lessig, he keeps losing, and so does Tenenbaum...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Looooool way to check your facts
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 6:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Are you an idiot?
        
        Have you ever uploaded to Youtube?
        
        It scans the video automatically and tells you if the music you used is copyrighted. The reason it does not immediately cancel the video is because Youtube has no idea if you are the copyright holder or if you have permission to use the media. That's why they rely on people to report for a DMCA takedown.
        
        You really don't check your facts, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Not I'm special, but because I'm right...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 11:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        that's BS mike, pure and total BS. citation please of singed artists who literally were never paid one dollar, show that to me...
        
        Um. We're talking about the artists on Tunecore. The point was that the vast majority of them would NOT BE SIGNED ARTISTS, and therefore would make NOTHING from music. So, by using Tunecore they're now making *something* rather than *nothing*. Which is a good thing.
        
        mike, record labels pay artists MILLIONS of dollars a year, the pirate bay pays artists ZERO dollars a year.
        
        I'm concerned about your infatuation with comparing apples to airplanes.
        
        Do you really not understand the difference here?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        No, we were talking about artists signed to labels, your ability to move the goal posts is astounding.
        
        But even at that do you really think DIY artists were incapable of making money before Tunecore? Aren't you the one talking about "Touring and T-Shirts"? I love the double standard.
        
        But while we're talking about artists on Tunecore, how does the Pirate Bay benefit them by illegally exploiting their recordings without consent or compensation?
        
        Why not just have a fair and ethical marketplace for all artists and let the Artist Decide how their work is distributed and who they want to be in business with?
        
        Afraid the artists would choose legal and ethical over illegal and unethical? Uh oh!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        No, we were talking about artists signed to labels, your ability to move the goal posts is astounding.
        
        No, we were not. You brought up artists on TuneCore as proof that new models are no good. Most of those artists would never be signed to a major label.
        
        The only one moving the goalposts here would be you.
        
        But even at that do you really think DIY artists were incapable of making money before Tunecore? Aren't you the one talking about "Touring and T-Shirts"? I love the double standard.
        
        As you should know, but apparently don't, in the *past* you couldn't build up enough of an audience to make that work without a label.
        
        But while we're talking about artists on Tunecore, how does the Pirate Bay benefit them by illegally exploiting their recordings without consent or compensation?
        
        What does TPB have to do with any of this? Besides, I'm beginning to realize you don't have the slightest clue what TPB does.
        
        Why not just have a fair and ethical marketplace for all artists and let the Artist Decide how their work is distributed and who they want to be in business with?
        
        Artists have the right to decide how their work is initially distributed, just as the guy who makes a chair has the right to decide how the chair is initially distributed. After that, they no longer have control. That's called a fair and ethical marketplace.
        
        Afraid the artists would choose legal and ethical over illegal and unethical? Uh oh!
        
        What does that even mean? You keep ascribing to me beliefs I don't have. Artists can choose whatever they want. I'm just saying that they should adapt to what the market is telling them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        No, we were talking about artists signed to labels, your ability to move the goal posts is astounding.
        
        No, we were not. You brought up artists on TuneCore as proof that new models are no good. Most of those artists would never be signed to a major label.
        
        ***
        Moving the goal posts again Mike... what does a Major Label have to do with anything? More artists made more money in the 90s on Indie Labels and DIY than they are today, even including Tunecore... so that point is moot. Hobbyists have also always made smatterings of money (non-pofessionally) here and there, nothing new. So Tunecore doesn't really factor one way or the other, except that in the aggregate, the numbers are all still down.
        http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/why-arent-more-musicians-working-professionally/
        h ttp://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/sf-gate-blunders-facts-about-recording-industry-and-pi racy/
        ***
        
        The only one moving the goalposts here would be you.
        
        ***
        Sorry Mike, as explained above, the "I'm rubber, your glue" routine does not work here. The facts are the facts. There are LESS working professional musicians today than a decade ago. There is less revenue from recorded music sales than a decade ago. Why not just support a fair and ethical internet where artists can make the choices for themselves of how to distribute their work and on what terms? Why must the internet be unethical to exist?
        ***
        
        But even at that do you really think DIY artists were incapable of making money before Tunecore? Aren't you the one talking about "Touring and T-Shirts"? I love the double standard.
        
        As you should know, but apparently don't, in the *past* you couldn't build up enough of an audience to make that work without a label.
        
        ***
        That is complete nonsense. Again, many "labels" existed to serve a single DIY artist and then grew from there (Epitaph for one). You have a large blind spot in regards to the history of the record business. The 70s-90s saw an explosion of DIY artists who essentially started their OWN labels as team building in much the same way Amanda has - so why cripple these artists now by illegally exploiting their work without consent or compensation? Why not allow a fair market place where all stakeholders can negotiate on the own terms? Why are you afraid of artists being empowered to make their own choices as opposed to those choices being taken away from them from unethical businesses like the pirate bay?
        ***
        
        But while we're talking about artists on Tunecore, how does the Pirate Bay benefit them by illegally exploiting their recordings without consent or compensation?
        
        What does TPB have to do with any of this? Besides, I'm beginning to realize you don't have the slightest clue what TPB does.
        
        ***
        Why don't you just acknowledge The Pirate Bay is an unethical business that is ripping off artists for profit and illegally exploiting them without consent or compensation? I know well what the Pirate Bay is, but you seem to be confused despite the convictions, sentencing and jail time. Why is that? Why can't you just acknowledge it is an unfair and unethical business, ripping off artists worse than labels ever did? Why are you so invested in protecting The Pirate Bay and the illegal exploitation of artists work?
        ***
        
        Why not just have a fair and ethical marketplace for all artists and let the Artist Decide how their work is distributed and who they want to be in business with?
        
        Artists have the right to decide how their work is initially distributed, just as the guy who makes a chair has the right to decide how the chair is initially distributed. After that, they no longer have control. That's called a fair and ethical marketplace.
        
        Afraid the artists would choose legal and ethical over illegal and unethical? Uh oh!
        
        What does that even mean? You keep ascribing to me beliefs I don't have. Artists can choose whatever they want. I'm just saying that they should adapt to what the market is telling them.
        
        ***
        No Mike, you are taking their choices away from them. The artists don't get to negotiate contracts, licenses and rates with The Pirate Bay and other businesses operating illegally. Sites like Limewire were operating illegally, for profit and ripping off artists. Did you support Limewire ripping off artists for profit, is that an ethical business to you? Are you really confused?
        
        So again Mike, why not just put down the black hat, pick up a white one and work towards the advancement of a fair and ethical internet that respects artists rights and allows artists to chose for themselves who to be in business with... Why are you so afraid of supporting the artists right to choose?
        
        Are you afraid that if given the choice they would chose to get paid for their work, as opposed to their work paying companies and corporations exploiting the artists illegally? I think I know the answer, but I'd love to be wrong, I'd love to see Mike Masnick say, "The Pirate Bay, Limewire and other companies and corporations illegally exploiting artists work for profit are unethical, and I pledge my support to seeing that an ethical and fair environment exists for artists online where their voice is the most important one, not the companies and corporations ripping them off...
        ***
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        http://thetrichordist
        
        Oh, you're that douchebag troll.
        
        Reported.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        anyone who disagrees with TD "hive mind" must be a douchebag troll, I see. great logic. so much for OPEN debate... you guys are the playground bullies who just can't take anyone standing up to you, what a sad cliche'...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        anyone who disagrees with TD "hive mind" must be a douchebag troll, I see.
        
        No, just people who have no intention of actually engaging in any sort of debate, and merely come here to post more links to some idiotic, hate-filled anti-tech rant blog.
        
        Like you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Like you.
        
        Incidentally, I did a little digging on this whole thing.
        
        I'm going to assume that our idiotic friend here is also the prime author of The Trichordist. I assume this because the only thing this asshole does is come here and attempt to call everyone names while puking out links to this awful, misinformed rant site.
        
        It's especially aggravating because he only posts in stories about successful musicians, dragging every one of these stories into the gutter, and totally ruining any sort of productive discussion we could ever have about these (or any other) artists. It is not just disrespectful to Techdirt, it is disrespectful to the artists themselves.
        
        Well, wouldn't you know it. After a bit of digging on Google, I found this:
        
        Hello everybody.
        
        I�m making some changes to the this blog. So for the time being I have unpublished all these posts. I�ll put them back on line as we go through them. thanks.
        
        You can also visit me at www.trichordist.com
        
        And where, precisely, did I find this?
        
        On Cracker's website.
        
        You remember Cracker, right? That's the band that is fronted by David Lowery. If you don't recall, Mike took Lowery to task for a Facebook post that hated on the "new music model," without actually making any sense whatsoever. And in return, Lowery himself came on here and acted like a douchebag, talking lawsuits, calling people "fuckface," etc.
        
        Interesting. Apparently the man just can't stop being an asshole.
        
        Maybe someone should take him bowling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        I like Cracker too, it's just too bad the embittered soul feels the need to lash out instead of progress and change like a normal human being.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        No, it's an opposing point of view. If you really want a debate why are you so afraid of actually having one with someone who disagrees with you? It's because your arguments just simply don't hold up under the smallest amount of scrutiny... that's why.
        
        do you honestly believe the pirate bay is a fair and ethical business for artists, having their work distributed without their consent or compensation?
        
        pirate bay = 100% of the artists money
        artists = 0% of the artists money
        
        old gate keepers = access to distribution
        new gate keepers = access to revenue from distribution
        
        same game, new players, worse terms.
        
        why can't the pirate bay operate a legal and ethical business like Spotify? How does it encourage innovation when Spotify actually plays by the rules (and the expenses to do so), and The Pirate Bay does not?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 5:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        An opposing point of view that makes the assumption we're all in support of the Pirate Bay? You have some sound circular reasoning going on there.
        
        Why can't labels play by the rules? Answer me that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        if artists don't get paid by labels how do we have millionaire rock stars? the paradox of pirate logic is amazing... and artists have contracts with labels they can dispute, and they do, and they win.
        
        there are no contracts with the pirate bay. there are no negotiations with the pirate bay. there are no payments from the pirate bay despite the money they make illegally exploiting artists work for profit... surely you understand how advertising works on the internet?
        
        so there's no circular reasoning. why would you support a system that's worse for artists than the labels were?
        
        why not just say, "I Don't Support The Pirate Bay's Unethical and Illegal Practices Against Artists"... go ahead, surprise me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 6:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        >if artists don't get paid by labels how do we have millionaire rock stars?
        
        Dedicated fan base? For someone who has repeatedly claimed to hate labels and not care for them you persist in making claims to support and justify their existence.
        
        >and artists have contracts with labels they can dispute, and they do, and they win.
        
        And meanwhile the label stonewalls to avoid having to pay. Also, great way of avoiding the question as to why you can accept labels literally ripping off the artists they claim to protect.
        
        >there are no contracts with the pirate bay.
        
        Because The Pirate Bay is not a label, and is not supposed to function as one.
        
        >there are no negotiations with the pirate bay.
        
        Try DMCA notices. They work wonders, except for the part where The Pirate Bay doesn't host the content.
        
        >there are no payments from the pirate bay despite the money they make illegally exploiting artists work for profit
        
        There are no payments from Microsoft despite the money they make illegally exploiting artists work for profit.
        
        >"I Don't Support The Pirate Bay's Unethical and Illegal Practices Against Artists"
        
        Sure, I can say that. I don't support The Pirate Bay's unethical and illegal practices against artists. Currently, though, none of their practices are unethical or illegal against artists.
        
        By the way, hurricane head, found any sleeping giant artists to vote all your comments insightful yet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 4:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        > Sure, I can say that. I don't support The Pirate Bay's unethical and illegal practices against artists. Currently, though, none of their practices are unethical or illegal against artists.
        
        So the pirate bay profiting from the artists work without consent or compensation is not unethical?
        
        pirate bay = 100% of the artist money
        artists = 0% of the artists money
        
        maybe you missed the news of the pirate bay being convicted and sentenced to jail time? the big wuss doesn't seem to have such big balls now that he's looking at real jail time...
        
        http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-peter-sunde-requests-pardon-120511/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        >So the pirate bay profiting from the artists work without consent or compensation is not unethical?
        
        Like I mentioned earlier, if you want to claim that being a search engine is unethical, include Bing, Yahoo and whatnot in your claims (no point mentioning Google because you've already included them). Also include Microsoft for providing the operating system with which to use The Pirate Bay, because clearly no one would ever use technology except to "exploit artists".
        
        >pirate bay = 100% of the artist money
        
        100% of 0 is still 0, you mathematical mistake.
        
        >maybe you missed the news of the pirate bay being convicted and sentenced to jail time?
        
        I read the news of The Pirate Bay being convicted from the prosecution and judge having a very healthy relationship with one another, and that the judge couldn't find the "100% of the artist money" you claim that they have.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 6:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        so it's not that they're guilty of running an unethical illegal business it's that "the system is wrong." really? I don't want to be insulting, but I'm really not one for conspiracy theories... they lost in court, upheld by their own supreme court, and are sentenced to jail time... but to you, they're just victims? Well, they do seem to whine a lot, there's no doubt there...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 7:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        So the pirate bay profiting from the artists work without consent or compensation is not unethical?
        
        The problem with this argument is that the Pirate Bay isn't doing this.
        
        They are offering a service to people. That service is enabling people to share digital material. That material could be infringing, or it could be non-infringing, but the Pirate Bay works exactly the same either way.
        
        They make money through advertising; it matters not one whit whether the pages that the advertising appears on are infringing or not. They're not charging for content. They're not making money on any specific content.
        
        That does not mean they're legal, of course. Obviously, they're not. Nor does it mean that they're not engaging in secondary liability for infringement. I've always said they should have obeyed takedown requests; and if they had, probably they would never have been charged in the first place.
        
        But this is hardly "ripping artists off" in the way you suggest. They don't remove any choices from artists: the artists still have the right and ability to sell their records, to charge money for performances, to engage in licensing, etc. And it's not like any artist's bank account balance declines when their records are shared. Even the notion that it causes a decline in revenue is arguable at best.
        
        But, "immoral?" No, not at all. If you think The Pirate Bay is "immoral," then you think libraries are "immoral." They're both doing essentially the same thing: allowing people to experience culture for free. The Pirate Bay is essentially doing what Jesus did in the parable of the loaves and fishes. It's just that they're doing it with culture instead of food.
        
        The idea that artists have the right to control what happens when their artwork reaches the public is not moral. It is certainly necessary; but it is a necessary evil. Confusing necessity with morality is a huge mistake, and one I'm not willing to make.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        you can't have liberty without consent. you are creating a false dichotomy. and, to be clear, the pirate bay is in fact in illegal and unethical business ripping off artists for profit, they were convicted, upheld by their supreme court and are facing jail time, there's no way around those facts.
        
        http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-peter-sunde-requests-pardon-120511/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        you can't have liberty without consent.
        
        Copyright law is forcing everyone to limit their own expression, without their consent, according to the demands of copyright holders.
        
        So, I guess you're saying that copyright is against liberty. I'm not too sure I'd go that far, but OK.
        
        you are creating a false dichotomy.
        
        I am not creating any sort of dichotomy whatsoever. If anyone here is doing so, it is you. Either you're supporting the 90's-era music industry, or you're supporting The Pirate Bay. That is the epitome of a false dichotomy.
        
        and, to be clear, the pirate bay is in fact in illegal and unethical business ripping off artists for profit, they were convicted, upheld by their supreme court and are facing jail time, there's no way around those facts.
        
        They are illegal. This is true. That they are unethical means that the law is automatically ethical, merely because it is the law. That is something I'm not willing to accept.
        
        And they were not convicted of "ripping off artists." They were not convicted for stealing. They were convicted for copyright infringement. The two are not the same thing at all. Especially not in this case, where the only thing they did was slap advertisements on a site that let users trade copyrighted material noncommercially.
        
        But, you know what? If you want to believe The Pirate Bay is not just illegal, but immoral, then go for it. Your opinion is not shared by most people (or even all artists), but go ahead and believe it.
        
        Even granting this, then so what? The Pirate Bay has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda. It has absolutely nothing to do with Kickstarter. And much as you want to believe otherwise, it has absolutely nothing to do with YouTube, iTunes, Tunecore, CD Baby, or any of the immense numbers of "tech sites" that absolutely and unquestionably benefit artists.
        
        So why the hell do you feel the need to bring them up every single time Techdirt does a post about successful artists?
        
        The obvious answer is the one I said above. You are trying to create a false dichotomy. You hate any music model that's not the one from the 90's, and you bring up The Pirate Bay as a typical "tech site" in order to slander everyone.
        
        You have zero interest in helping artists. You're just arguing to spread your dystopian propaganda. It's not working, as anyone who reads these comments can see right through your bullshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        you can't have liberty without consent.
        
        Copyright law is forcing everyone to limit their own expression, without their consent, according to the demands of copyright holders.
        
        ***
        That is false. Copyright allows the creators to CHOSE how their works are distributed and exploited. You are wrong. If a copyright holder chooses to waive their rights they are free to do so. It's about Freedom Of Choice, and you don't have the right (literally and legally) to take that right away from the creator.
        ***
        
        So, I guess you're saying that copyright is against liberty. I'm not too sure I'd go that far, but OK.
        
        ***
        You have a bizarre sense of logic. By your standard not allowing YOU to use child labor is against YOUR liberty and not the child's... Good luck with that
        ***
        
        you are creating a false dichotomy.
        
        I am not creating any sort of dichotomy whatsoever. If anyone here is doing so, it is you. Either you're supporting the 90's-era music industry, or you're supporting The Pirate Bay. That is the epitome of a false dichotomy.
        
        ***
        No. You are proposing either an illegal, unethical, lawless internet or complete draconian censorship. The truth is, the internet can function very will without rampant illegally exploitation of creators rights and liberty by internet corporations who profit from doing so. It's about money. Humans make technology. Humans make laws. Humans in force laws. This is not a technological issue, and if you want to prove to me that the "internet can not be controlled" than show me just five active links to porn on YouTube. The site gets over 72 Hours of uploaded content every minute and I have never seen any porn ever...
        ***
        
        and, to be clear, the pirate bay is in fact in illegal and unethical business ripping off artists for profit, they were convicted, upheld by their supreme court and are facing jail time, there's no way around those facts.
        
        They are illegal. This is true.
        
        ***
        AMEN! Was that so hard? Jeeesh!
        ***
        
        That they are unethical means that the law is automatically ethical, merely because it is the law. That is something I'm not willing to accept.
        
        ***
        Yeah dude, and you can claim that about ANY law you disagree with, let's just say that until you get the law changed (which you are no doubt working on and failing at) that you actually need to ACCEPT REALITY that this is ACTUALLY THE LAW. For guys who like to preach about "acceptance", and "getting over it", and "adapting and evolving" you seem to have a very hard time taking your own advice!
        ***
        
        And they were not convicted of "ripping off artists." They were not convicted for stealing. They were convicted for copyright infringement. The two are not the same thing at all. Especially not in this case, where the only thing they did was slap advertisements on a site that let users trade copyrighted material noncommercially.
        
        ***
        Seriouslly? Are you kidding me, you are admitting the crime, and then contradicting yourself two sentences later. Sorry, what they did was illegally exploit the artists work to generate advertising revenue, that's a COMMERCIAL gain, that's why they were convicted. Split hairs all you want but you can't outrun the facts. They got busted and convicted and sentenced to jail for ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL Business Practices!
        ***
        
        But, you know what? If you want to believe The Pirate Bay is not just illegal, but immoral, then go for it. Your opinion is not shared by most people (or even all artists), but go ahead and believe it.
        
        ***
        It really doesn't matter what I think, it's the LAW. Again, you want but you can't outrun the facts. They got busted and convicted and sentenced to jail for ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL Business Practices!
        ***
        
        Even granting this, then so what? The Pirate Bay has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda.
        
        ***
        Are you sure? How do you know? Does Amanda support the illegal exploitation of her work, or has she just find a tactful temporary solution for HER until the problem can be addressed? I'm pretty sure Amanda does not support abolishing copyright and artists rights, but if you have a citation where she says so, I'd like to see it
        ***
        
        It has absolutely nothing to do with Kickstarter. And much as you want to believe otherwise, it has absolutely nothing to do with YouTube, iTunes, Tunecore, CD Baby, or any of the immense numbers of "tech sites" that absolutely and unquestionably benefit artists.
        
        ***
        Sites operating LEGALLY are not the problem. Do you really not understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?
        ***
        
        So why the hell do you feel the need to bring them up every single time Techdirt does a post about successful artists?
        
        ***
        Because it's all part of the lie that artists are better off than they were, and they're not, not by a long shot and The Pirate Bay and other illegal and unethical businesses ripping off artists WORSE than labels are the reason why. Why are you so invested in your religious devotion to protecting a system that is hurting artists?
        
        Empowered artists are PAID artists with the CHOICE to determine who they are in business with. No one has the right to illegally exploit and profit from the artists work without consent or compensation. How would society if no one ever needed to give consent, there is no liberty in tyranny.
        ***
        
        The obvious answer is the one I said above. You are trying to create a false dichotomy. You hate any music model that's not the one from the 90's, and you bring up The Pirate Bay as a typical "tech site" in order to slander everyone.
        
        ***
        I hate artists being exploited by anyone in any era, be it labels, or internet companies. The difference is unlike the pirate bay, artists negotiate contracts with labels and have free agency. But it doesn't matter, because I'd love to see a world without labels. If artists could actually support themselves professionally without labels, than the labels would really have to offer value to artists to remain in business - but the opposite is true, deals for artists have gotten worse because artists are disempowered. There was no such thing as "360 Deals" prior to piracy.
        ***
        
        You have zero interest in helping artists. You're just arguing to spread your dystopian propaganda. It's not working, as anyone who reads these comments can see right through your bullshit.
        
        ***
        Nonsense, if that was true you wouldn't need to spend so much of your time try to convince people otherwise. The truth actually is, you can't outrun reality and more and more artists are learning first hand that after a decade of half baked ideas and lies they are waaay worse of than they were a decade ago, the emperor has no clothes, and more and more artists are learning this reality, and they are learning not by rhetoric on the web, they are learning it through their own personal experiences, and that you can't correct until you have more people making more money than you did in the previous era. And, if that were true, we would not be having this conversation. So I'd suggest you actually get hip to reality, before reality get's hip to you...
        ***
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Copyright allows the creators to CHOSE how their works are distributed and exploited.
        
        Yes. Copyright allows the copyright holders (not necessarily the creators) to choose how to restrict other people. Were it not for copyright, any album that I paid for would be my property, so I could make a copy of it, distribute it, etc - just as I can with e.g. a chair. Copyright takes that choice away from me, by law. It is a "negative right;" specifically, a government-granted pure monopoly right, like the Dutch East India Trading Company used to enjoy. It does not actually grant any abilities to the copyright holders themselves. They would be free to produce artworks, sell them, license them, etc, even if copyright didn't exist at all. Instead, all copyright does is allow rights holders to take that ability away from everyone else. The fact that those abilities are expression makes it even less moral. By your own argument, it is against liberty.
        
        I personally don't believe it is "against liberty." It is a restriction on choice, but a necessary one. Not the laws we have now, of course - those have gone way too far - but the right for an artist to restrict other peoples' choices is necessary. A necessary evil, but still necessary.
        
        You are proposing either an illegal, unethical, lawless internet or complete draconian censorship.
        
        I would like you to show me where I have even suggested anything of the sort. In fact, it's usually those who are for "draconian censorship" that have presented that dichotomy.
        
        AMEN! Was that so hard? Jeeesh!
        
        Can you point to a single time I suggested otherwise?
        
        Sorry, what they did was illegally exploit the artists work to generate advertising revenue
        
        What they did was secondary copyright infringement. The primary infringers (the users) were not doing it for profit. That The Pirate Bay monetized it made it illegal, but the infringement itself wasn't done for profit. They didn't "exploit the artists work," they exploited the fact that fans like to share music. There's a difference.
        
        They got busted and convicted and sentenced to jail for ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL Business Practices!
        
        Illegal? Yes. Unethical? Not in my book. They are essentially a for-profit library. The law may have a problem with that, but I don't.
        
        Are you sure? How do you know? Does Amanda support the illegal exploitation of her work, or has she just find a tactful temporary solution for HER until the problem can be addressed? I'm pretty sure Amanda does not support abolishing copyright and artists rights, but if you have a citation where she says so, I'd like to see it[.]
        
        Why, look at that.
        
        Oh, and supporting fans sharing music does not necessarily mean you want to abolish copyright, and in no case does it mean you are against artists' rights. It might help if you learned these things.
        
        Sites operating LEGALLY are not the problem.
        
        And yet, every time there's a story about artists using sites legally, you focus entirely on The Pirate Bay.
        
        For example:
        
        Because it's all part of the lie that artists are better off than they were, and they're not, not by a long shot and The Pirate Bay and other illegal and unethical businesses ripping off artists WORSE than labels are the reason why.
        
        If artists are worse off, it is not because of sites like The Pirate Bay. It is because of the shifting legal marketplace, and bad business decisions by the major labels (which unfortunately rippled down to everyone).
        
        And even if you think artists are worse off, even if you think sites like The Pirate Bay are responsible, that still doesn't explain why you feel you need to evangelize it on this story - which has absolutely nothing to do with The Pirate Bay, or sites operating illegally, or piracy in general.
        
        Amanda is successful. She used a new(ish) business model to help her become successful. She did it without having to compromise her ideals, without signing over the rights to her music. That should be celebrated. It should be inspirational.
        
        Instead, you're insulting her, derailing the conversation, and offering absolutely nothing whatsoever that would actually help any musician in the real world. Nothing.
        
        This is why I take the time to argue with you. The only thing I've ever heard you say is "it sucks nowadays, and everything new that has come along to help artists is worthless." You are the voice in every musician's head that is telling them to shut up, it's not worth it, you'll never get ahead, don't even try.
        
        In the final analysis, you are anti-success. The fact that you don't even see this is sad.
        
        If artists could actually support themselves professionally without labels, than the labels would really have to offer value to artists to remain in business
        
        Or, if the labels lose money on a string of bad business decisions, they will exploit artists even more to squeeze every last drop of income from them. Which is exactly what is happening right now.
        
        So, yes, things are probably worse for artists signed to a major label. And considering how shitty things were before, that's saying something.
        
        But the vast, vast majority of artists are not, and never would have been. They would have been locked out of the larger music industry altogether. They could not get on the radio; couldn't get their albums in retail outlets; and had no way to interact with fans on a global level. No matter how talented they were, no matter how much people would have loved their music, they were held down by a glass ceiling held in place by the majors.
        
        For those artists, things are better now than they were before. Live revenue is up; licensing revenue is up; merch sales are up. People are spending more on music now than they have at any other point in history - more than offsetting the losses in recording revenue. And the indie labels have been helped more than anyone else; they have a far larger market share than they ever had before.
        
        And there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of ways to make money that simply didn't exist before. YouTube, CD Baby, TuneCore, Kickstarter - the artists who are making money through these companies are artists who would have made no money at all under the old label system. You can even sell your tracks on iTunes or Amazon far easier than you could get your music into a record store, and they're global. Most artists will never make enough to live off of. But they're making some money, at least, where before they would have made nothing.
        
        This doesn't mean that the majors don't hold a disproportionate amount of power, which is why they still dominate the Top 40. They have been making billions for decades, and aren't going away anytime soon. That glass ceiling is still there. But it is cracking. And if you're smart enough, popular enough, and work hard enough, there's a chance you can widen those cracks.
        
        This should be celebrated. Instead, you're pushing doom-and-gloom, calling all the new opportunities "half baked ideas and lies." You take all the people who use these tools successfully, and denigrate them. Simply put, you're only telling artists how to fail. It makes me angry.
        
        And, if that were true, we would not be having this conversation.
        
        We would still be having this conversation, because you would be spouting your bullshit whether artists actually were better off or not. Exhibit A: they are, and you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 1:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        "anyone who disagrees with TD "hive mind" must be a douchebag troll"
        
        No, anyone who acts like a douchebag troll must be a douchebag troll. Non-idiots are welcome to make their comment, but you've never made a single valid point and are incapable of saying anything without attacking people like a roid-raged moron. That makes you a douchebag troll, nothing else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        if the fixed cost doesn't matter in pricing you've got a few of your own pissed off in this thread over $20 albums... take it up with them...
        
        Er, $20 per album is a marginal cost. Learn the difference.
        
        if you want to know how record label economics work, you should read this, it's getting a lot of buzz online within the community of musicians for it's insightful look at how the new exploitation economy is worse for artists than the previous label era...
        
        You do realize that isn't even close to accurate, right? I mean, I know you wrote it so you want to believe it, but it's laughably ignorant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      at least "anon" has some integrity. when labels break even and try to explain the same economics it's "greed" but when the artist is spending the same money, to do the same things, to pay the same people, it's a "win."
      
      Huh? Can you explain where a label ever opened up this way and I described it as "greed"? Citation or admit you're making shit up.
      
      I just find the double standard of the TD community a bit ironic. If the same numbers were posted by the RIAA you'd claim they were lies and that they were pocketing hundreds of thousands in profits.
      
      Again, citation or admit that you're making shit up.
      
      But here we are, and you can see that developing an artists is not cheap. How many other artists (without the previous backing of millions in major label marketing) will be able to do what Amanda has?
      
      But this isn't just about "developing an artist." If you've followed Amanda's career (and clearly, you haven't), she's built an awful lot of her fanbase *after* she left the label (and plenty before she was on the label). Separately, she's done a bunch of other things in the meantime.
      
      The reason *this* project is so expensive is because she *chose* to do an expensive project. It's misleading in the extreme (nothing new for you, I can see) to suggest that this is "the cost of developing an artist." Not so. This is the cost of putting together this massively expensive project. That's it.
      
      In the end, this is pretty much a different spin on the same experiment Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead did, and not to be repeated, and not accomplished by artists of lessor stature, nor without the help of those previous major label funds.
      
      Ah, bullshit. We've highlighted tons of indie artists who have done cool things and built up sustainable business models on their own. Corey Smith, Jonathan Coulton, Matthew Ebel, Jason Parker, Motoboy. I could go on and on.
      
      This is invalidates the argument of "fixed costs" on digital goods. It's great to make a profit on marginal costs if one is not on the line for the fixed costs...
      
      Uh, exactly the opposite, Sparky. What Amanda is doing here is *selling scarce goods*. We've said all along that that's where the money is. Sell the scarce, and that's what Amanda is doing.
      
      Also, we never said to ignore fixed costs. We said that fixed costs don't matter in PRICING -- and that's clearly true with her offering here. After all, the digital album itself can be had for $1.
      
      Cuz I'm sure that TD will also champion the illegal exploitation of Palmer's work for whomever can profit without having actually investing in the work itself, which is both sad and unethical...
      
      See, the thing is, I know Amanda, and she's smart enough to know that what you're discussing isn't exploitation. It's fan promoting her work, and she knows that she'll profit from it.
      
      Your failure to grasp such basic concepts explains why you're having so much trouble adapting. If you actually read what we wrote instead of imagining up strawmen, you might not be such a complete failure in life.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 12:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        flustered? Interesting double post... you are failing to grasp the reality that one casino win is not a model for developing artists...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 12:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        I'm curious mike are you or are you not going to champion the illegal exploitation of amanda's album by those who have made no investment in it? do you think it's fair and ethical for corporations and companies to profit from amanda's work without her consent, or offering her any compensation?
        
        do you support, for example, the pirate bay illegally exploiting an artists work without their compensation or consent?
        
        why would you support the pirate bay keeping 100% of the artists share of the revenue and paying the artists 0% of the revenue, that's a far worse deal than a label...
        
        by supporting this model, you are worse than the labels, worse than the riaa whom you so despise... which is interesting to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Why bare you such an obnoxious idiot? Really, your arguments get you nowhere yet you make the same ones in every thread, even after you've been proven wrong or it's been explained to you why the misdirection you're attempting means nothing.
        
        There's a term for people who try the same thing over and over again and expect the same results. Perhaps you can avoid this definition by offering a cogent, logical argument that's actually related to the issues in hand?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        So what we have here is a frequent set of examples of how people are successfully competing in the new reality. You keep trying to drag it back to a moral question that, in itself, is based on a massive assumption: that an artist can or should be able to control something once it has been released to a market.
        In the days of physical and discrete goods that may have been valid but I keep getting back to the question of why it would still be valid.
        I should thank you for your comments as I've done some further thinking about your point, sadly I've come down even further on the other side of the argument.
        Why should it be illegal for someone to build a business on the back of someone else's work? Because of copyright. That's all. I no longer think that that's a good argument, it (like patents) is a legacy that has been built and repeatedly extended by industries who have struggled to compete.
        I'm no longer convinced of its worth at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 2:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        "In the days of physical and discrete goods that may have been valid"
        
        No it would still have been impossible and a fool's errand to try. Everything from recorded radio shows to mixtapes to grey imports have been rife for decades. It may have been easier to ignore (despite the pointless "home taping is killing music" propaganda that failed as miserably as recent propaganda), but it's always been part of the reality. It just now happens to be an easy scapegoat for the industry's many, many other failings in recent years and an excuse not to change despite every business reality forcing them to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 5:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        I was thinking in terms of the effort involved in duplicating a discrete,physical item may be sufficient to effectively limit what can be done with it after sale. E.g. manually copying a book is unlikely to be a time-effective activity.
        Even then I was a bit dubious about it, hence "may".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        why would you support the pirate bay keeping 100% of the artists share of the revenue and paying the artists 0% of the revenue, that's a far worse deal than a label...
        
        So, like Somin Cowell, only with less comical tans?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 4:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        >illegal exploitation
        
        C'mon, hurricane head - get your sleeping giant artist friends to vote your comments insightful. There are so many anti-TechDirt artists, I know you can do it. If they're even there.
        
        Right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        the lion sleeps tonight...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2012 @ 6:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Sleeps tonight? Because they need to be poked harder, or - wait for it - there's no fucking lion there to begin with?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        And when did you stop beating your wife?
        
        Until you realize that you're asking ridiculously loaded questions that purpose ignore the point, it's pretty pointless to try to engage with you.
        
        Why do you repeat that stupid "100%/0%" claim again, despite the fact that you're comparing apples to airplanes?
        
        by supporting this model, you are worse than the labels, worse than the riaa whom you so despise... which is interesting to me.
        
        What's interesting to me is that you seem to misinterpret almost everything and set up strawmen in your own mind to fight, rather than understanding the world we actually live in.
        
        It's impressive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        what's impressive is the inability for you to address your religious devotion to defending the pirate bay ripping off artists through the illegal exploitation of their work without consent or compensation.
        
        do you, or do you not believe the pirate bay is an unethical business? it's not that hard really... they've lost in court, they've been dismissed by their supreme court, they've been sentenced and they're looking at jail time. But to you that's a business you want to personally support and promote? Really? Those are your personal business values? Wow, just wow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        Because nobody, NOBODY has ever double posted on this forum before! The only explanation is some kind of problem with Mike's personality!
        
        Tool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        jus sayin...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      Cuz I'm sure that TD will also champion the illegal exploitation of Palmer's work for whomever can profit without having actually investing in the work itself, which is both sad and unethical...
      
      It's not "exploitation" when she encourages it, right?
      
      i think music should be shared. all the time. by everybody. i think it�s pure insanity to make music filesharing illegal.
      and with that said, i have, for years, encouraged my fans to burn, download and share all of my music with each other and with strangers.
      and i will never stop doing that. all that sharing eventually comes back to me in all forms of income and goodwill.
      
      That's from Amanda.
      
      Why are you so against musicians' choice like that? Calling her decision to let her music be shared "exploitation" and arguing the platforms she uses spread her music and make more money (and goodwill) are "unethical."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pantsless, 23 May 2012 @ 12:27am
    
    Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
    It looks like she is going to make special things for her supporters and that is a great thing. That said, the costs claimed seem to include some "padding" over the actual cost of the items offered.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 12:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      how much padding is acceptable? how much would you accept from a label?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        5-10%, provided they could account for the expenditures properly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        so if the artist or the label pads more than 5-10% that's too much? They should only make the margin you decide? What if Amanda decided to pad by 95% because 95% of the distribution and consumption of the album will be done so illegally? Wouldn't that be fair?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 5:35pm
  
  Re: 20 bucks a record?
  Lies.
  
  You know something? I do know how much it costs to press vinyl, and though $20 might be high, it's not a "lie" by any stretch.
  
  Your costs are for a bargain-basement LP, with a single jacket. But there are plenty of other costs to take into account. Is this going to be on 120-gram (or higher) vinyl? Colored vinyl? Are you going with a one-step or two-step process? Are you going to have full-color inserts, gatefold jacket, or other packaging?
  
  You're also forgetting something (which everyone does): shipping. Shipping costs for a vinyl LP are pretty extraordinary - especially if you're shipping them to foreign countries (the shipping rates for overseas have risen astronomically over the past couple years).
  
  Factor in the costs for printing the cards, and $20 is not too unreasonable. Still a bit high, perhaps, but not outside of the realm of possibility.
  
  It's certainly not in the realm of being a "lie."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 7:52pm
    
    Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
    You're also forgetting the cost of the person's time it takes to make something worth putting on that record, which is considerably more expensive than a slab of vinyl.
    
    That's like saying the cost of a Van Gogh is just a few pieces of wood and a bit of canvas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 9:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      You're also forgetting the cost of the person's time it takes to make something worth putting on that record
      
      To be fair, Amanda was not claiming this as a cost, either.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 11:37pm
    
    Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
    but when labels charge $20 for it's unfair even though the label has to pay the artist from that same price. but when the artist pockets all the money, without a third party, then that's fair?
    
    man, the BS around here is astounding... it's amazing how fast the goal posts move in an attempt to spin a story...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      Do you want to cite where somebody actually attacked the price of a quality vinyl pressing (rather than an MP3 or mass produced CD)?
      
      My guess: you can't because you're too single-minded to actually understand any of the arguments being made. Yet, you still attack...
      
      "when the artist pockets all the money, without a third party, then that's fair?"
      
      Why is it not? My God, the person actually creating the product is getting the money and not middlemen who are trying to destroy free speech and the internet to retain their profits despite not creating the music in the first place! What a monster she must be!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - drew (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      "but when the artist pockets all the money, without a third party, then that's fair?"
      
      YES! Of course it's friggin' fair! The artist sets the price, the fan agrees that the price is reasonable and buys the goods.
      If it's unfair then the fan doesn't pay and the artist goes back to square one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 7:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      Didn't the labels try to reduce royalties to the artists?
      
      Yeah...poor, poor labels.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
      but when labels charge $20 for it's unfair even though the label has to pay the artist from that same price.
      
      It costs significantly less than this to make a typical album. Amanda is making something far more extravagant than a CD in a standard jewel case with a 4-color 2-panel insert. Yet the labels charged $20 for those, too.
      
      but when the artist pockets all the money, without a third party, then that's fair?
      
      Yep. We support artists because they create art we like. We have no problem if they keep the profits. We have problems with people who don't create anything taking all of the money that we pay, and keeping it without paying artists anything. (And by "we," I mean people in general, not just Techdirt folks.)
      
      And please spare us the "then why do you support The Pirate Bay" bullshit that you'll inevitably spout back at us. If you could prove for one moment that The Pirate Bay actually takes money out of artists' pockets, we wouldn't support them. But they don't. They serve advertising on a site that provides a service to everyone, musicians and non-musicians alike.
      
      And please keep in mind that posting links to ignorant, hate-filled rant sites the "the trichordist" or "pop up pirates" is not proof of anything.
      
      Plus, not everyone here supports them. Myself included. I think they should have always followed the DMCA. But if they did, then I wouldn't have a problem with them at all.
      
      But even those who think they're doing things the wrong way aren't stupid enough to believe they're actually "ripping off musicians." I don't think they ever believed what they were doing actually hurt musicians at all (and they might be right), and certainly, they've recently focused specifically on ways they could help (by e.g. the Promo Bay).
      
      They are primarily ideology-driven, dedicated to an absolutist vision of free expression (of both the "free beer" and "free speech" varieties). And that is something that even professional artists can get behind. Whatever the Pirate Bay's flaws (and there are many), they're doing something that is fundamentally good for society, and everyone knows it (artists included).
      
      And this is the problem. It is certainly possible to criticize the Pirate Bay. But because the major labels are so much worse for artists, and have the political clout to push through laws that are horrifying for all of society, that The Pirate Bay looks like angels in comparison. Big Media has made it a "you're either with us, or you're with the Pirate Bay" situation. It's no surprise that most people (and many artists) side with the Pirate Bay.
      
      Incidentally, you're doing exactly the same thing if you use The Pirate Bay and "the tech industry" in the same sentence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        ...And, once again, I got suckered into responding to a troll. I really need to cut that out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        nah, you're doing good work. that's why he doesnit reply to your comments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        once again, you are just moving the goal posts, that's neither difficult or innovative.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 5:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        No, you idiot, you're the one who moves the goalposts when in fact everyone else is playing baseball.
        
        You make the same damn claims in every thread regardless of relevance.
        
        Whatever game it is, you've already lost. By a mile. Go get some of those sleeping giant anti-Techdirt artists to help you out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 6:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
        interesting that you don't even know what the game is...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 5:21am
  
  Re: 20 bucks a record?
  $5 for postage...LOL!
  
  Try posting anything physical to New Zealand and you'll see how far your $5 dollars gets you..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:48pm
    
    Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?
    Doubt it will even get you out of the port of LA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 4:54pm

What confuses me is that she claims she needed to borrow around $250,000 from family and friends just to get the project to the "Kickstarter table."

Isn't she married to a man with a net worth of 18 million dollars? A man who charges libraries $45,000 speaking fees?

Why borrow from friends?

Also, regarding transparency, it's not exactly 'transparent' when the person holding the cash says what they're spending money on. Especially when they're claiming dubious numbers like $20 to press each vinyl record. Those are the kind of numbers the record labels claim against artist's recoup. That doesn't reflect reality at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2012 @ 7:29pm
  
  Re:
  Isn't she married to a man with a net worth of 18 million dollars? A man who charges libraries $45,000 speaking fees?
  
  Yeah! Why doesn't she just go into their kitchen and get him a sandwich already?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:26am
  
  Re:
  So, even when an artist is successful, you have to attack them. No wonder your arguments never get you anywhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:58am
  
  Re:
  So, you've never accounted for going over budget.
  
  Good to know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:54pm
  
  Re:
  Okay, so you're among the nay sayers on the $20... Let's look at EXACTLY what is being made...
  
  {BACKER-EXCLUSIVE LIMITED EDITION VINYL} gorgeous backer-only version of the album on two 180 gram black records in a gatefold package. includes a set of heavy-stock inserts with artwork, lyrics, and photographs. PLUS deluxe digital download & thank-you card.
  
  TWO 180g albums
  Gatefold package
  Heavy-stock inserts of art, lyrics, AND photos
  Thank you card
  Don't forget the shipping!
  
  Somehow $20 doesn't seem all that padded, anymore. If a cheap LP costs $6, then we're at $12 just for the vinyl. I think she's being optimistic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 2:11am

good for her. people will support her again, i am sure, just because of the openness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:24am

I think the (other) AC is is right.
It seems weird, and somewhat hypocritical to suggest fixed costs don't matter, then it turns out one of your fave artists spent 1/4 million before they even got to Kickstarter.
That's some fixed cost to apparently ignore!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 3:34am
  
  Re:
  "suggest fixed costs don't matter"
  
  Has anybody actually said this? They've said that they're irrelevant to the average consumer's decision to buy and nobody cares whether you spent $25k or $25 million to produce your album. They've said that they don't matter when looking at the marginal costs and distribution/marketing. But I don't think anybody has said they don't actually matter at all in any way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 4:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem is, whenever you have these debates in public, the public claim music is too expensive. If they don't understand the cost of production ($250,000 apparently), how can they determine they are being over charged?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 4:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They don't have to. If I buy a CD for $10, I don't give a crap what it cost to produce the album, I paid $10 for it and that's what it's worth. If I don't want to pay $10 (say, because 8 of the 10 tracks on there are crap, or I want a digital download that costs virtually nothing to distribute), then it's worth whatever I wish to pay. If I wish to pay $5, but you're charging $10, I'll feel I'm being overcharged and may refuse to pay, or I'll find some cheaper option (or buy from a cheaper competitor).
      
      This is how economics work. The product is worth whatever the market is willing to bear. If people want to pay $15 for the album, or pay 99c for one track off the album, or pay $4 for a download, then that's what it's worth. If you're unable to recoup the fixed costs in there, you can't force people to pay higher prices if they don't wish to, so you have to find other ways of recouping the costs. This may mean reducing your fixed costs, it may mean taking a hit on lower margin profits in favour of selling higher margin products, it may mean changing your marketing tactics altogether. The average consumer does not care.
      
      I don't care whether you're Amanda Palmer, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Bay, IKEA or Wal Mart, this is how things work, and always have.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hmm I don't think it's ever worked along the lines of "Make your product cheaper or we'll just pirate it".
        If I price my CD at $10, and you can find it for $3. Good luck and well done.
        But that's NOT what is happening.
        Pirates justify pirating by claiming music is too expensive. So how do you determine if music is too expensive if you don't know or don't care how much it costs to create?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When you overvalue your content and treat paying customer like criminals, doesn't it then make sense, from a rational actor standpoint that consumers would do anything within their power to avoid contributing to the conomic status quo?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 5:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you really this dense?
        
        If I hear an album and I don't like it, I won't buy it. If I heard it and I only want to pay $5, and that option is not available to me, I still won't pay more. If I think it's worth the $10, I'll pay for it, but I won't blind buy it. I'll wait till I can preview it, and if that option isn't available, I still won't buy it. I don't give a shit how much it cost you to record it.
        
        Stop with the stupid piracy strawman - I didn't say I'd pirate it, only that I wouldn't buy it. I'll buy from one of your competitors who knows how not to overprice their product.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I price my CD at $10, and you can find it for $3. Good luck and well done.
        But that's NOT what is happening.
        
        Ask Louis CK about that. He might disagree with you.
        
        Pirates justify pirating by claiming music is too expensive. So how do you determine if music is too expensive if you don't know or don't care how much it costs to create?
        
        No, they say the cost to *them* is too expensive to buy. That has nothing to do with the fixed costs. Look, if an album costs $10 and I decide it's not worth $10 that has nothing to do with whether or not the artist spent $100 recording it or $10,000,000.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't justify piracy because music is expensive, I justify not buying crappy music because it's too expensive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        if it's crappy why waste your time at all - argument fail - if you really didn't care, you'd ignore it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...that's exactly my point, I don't waste my time with crappy music as do others, so we just don't buy it. That could account for drop in sales, but you'd rather take the dramatic approach and blame all of the RIAA's ills on piracy, which is a smaller part of the problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        illegal exploitation of artists work without consent or compensation is the issue - if music sucks, why share it?
        
        there's no outrunning the truth, companies and corporations are profiting from the illegal exploitation of artists work, let's get the artists paid fairly and ethically, and then see where the chips fall.
        
        right now, we've seen a drop of over 45% in working professional musicians, the internet is not working for musicians, that's a fact and one off's like amanda palmer are not moving the needle for the majority of musicians who are being illegally exploited... why do you want to support a system that ripps off artists worse than labels ever did... and even amanda says that after expenses, she's not really making any money and that's after raising $1m?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't share it, I don't buy it either, therefore how could I share it, unless you're coming from the mentality that everyone who responds here is a pirate, which is a huge generalization considering that there are people here who do not support piracy. They'd rather support the ideas that an artist deserves to have the majority of their revenue form their passion and livelihood, not widdle it away paying off a debt to a huge conglomerate that just wants to make money.
        
        The internet isn't the problem, the artists getting paid is the problem. When you couple that with Labels trying to reduce royalty rates, over-saturation of cookie-cutter bands, piracy, and the big companies being unwilling to pay artists for their work, then you have a hazardous occupation that people do not want to focus on.
        
        Amanda Palmer is attempting to innovate, but innovation does not come about by the actions of a few, though they inspire it to happen. You also can't be impatient expecting change to come right off the bat.
        
        Support a system that rips off artists...you mean the internet? I'm sorry but the internet is a tool, the people who use it to commit wrongdoings, whether it's the pirates or the jerk-offs pulling down random content with false DMCA takedowns, are responsible for how they use it.
        
        There's no magic number, no answer to getting you to make a lot of money being a musician. The fact is, it's not the same world as it was in the 90s and things are not going back to the way they were. You either adapt or find another profession
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        how much are will Amanda get paid from the pirate bay when they illegally distribute her work for profit?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 4:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How much will she get paid when the labels keep her copyright for 70+ years?
        
        Probably as much as Tunecore...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        70 years? The Pirate Bay is paying her NOTHING TODAY on anything she releases, or would you like to show me that contract and terms they negotiated with her consent?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is she even on the Pirate Bay?
        
        I mean...if I were making your argument, I'd be sure to back up my claims.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How much is Google paying her to index her in their search engine? Nothing? Then why should the Pirate Bay, another search engine, do anything more than they do? If I recall correctly they don't even have a tracker, anymore. They're just a simple search engine, now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        google is a big offender as well, they are aiding and profiting from the illegal exploitation of artists works. why not de-list the illegal activity? but Google is going to have even bigger problems soon enough through anti-trust, wi-spy, etc... not to mention the half a billion dollar smack down from big pharma last year...
        
        I'd enjoy the post sopa victory lap while you can... you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "How much will she get paid when the labels keep her copyright for 70+ years?
        
        Probably as much as Tunecore..."
        
        let's see, if the pirate bay payment rates remain the same as today at ZERO, than in 70 years I'm guessing, I don't know, she'll be getting paid ZERO then... which is, actually less than tunecore/itunes/ etc...
        
        so you're actually asking how much she'll get paid from a site illegally exploiting her work, when you know they don't pay anything? Seriously?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Man...could have sworn the burden of proof was on you, I guess we can let ya be a lazy discussion-ista this one time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        if you are arguing that the pirate bay is an ethical business just show me the contracts and payments they're making to artists? burden of proof is on you, it's your claim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't believe he was arguing that, just calling you on your lack of proof that Amanda Palmer is on Pirate Bay.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        how do you know?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're still pushing this anti pirate bay agenda, yet no one has supported copying her work without her permission.
        
        Trying to find a middle ground between avoiding being screwed by pirates and the labels is a challenge, but that's the way things are, and if you hadn't noticed trying to block Pirate Bay has met with little to no success while circumventing it by appealing to your fans is a better long-term route.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        maybe, or maybe these guys are onto something... if you can agree that piracy is illegal and unethical, it's a start towards a workable solution.
        
        http://www.piratepay.ru/en
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 6:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've already agreed...
        
        You just stuck on the fact that everyone here is a pirate, which kind of makes your points dismissive in other people's minds because you are making a sweeping generalization.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        not everyone, only those who seem to have a religious devotion to protecting a business that is operation illegally and unethically ripping off artists... if you are not one of them, than you don't need to debate the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        illegal exploitation of artists work without consent or compensation is the issue
        
        Actually, the issue is how all of us artists can learn from Amanda's Kickstarter campaign.
        
        You just derailed the entire conversation, like you always do.
        
        Now, go away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 5:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nothing has been derailed when discussing the truth, Amanda's experiment works in the same way the NIN and Radiohead experiments worked... because of all the millions of dollars in label funding that created that she didn't have to spend. Nothing wrong with that, but just be honest about it. If you theory is so fragile as to not withstand the simplest of pressure testing, it's probably not a very good theory...
        
        and the numbers bear this out... from DMN today...
        
        "Statistical Proof That DIY Doesn't Pay"
        http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120523team
        
        don't shoot the messenger, take it up with FOMC and Resnikoff... sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Amanda's experiment works in the same way the NIN and Radiohead experiments worked... because of all the millions of dollars in label funding that created that she didn't have to spend.
        
        This has been debunked plenty of times, but I'll humor you and do so again:
        
        And because of that decision [to sign with Roadrunner], the band did receive pockets of radio success in markets like St. Louis and Arizona. The attendance at those shows spiked in 2006 when a few Dolls songs were receiving airplay. Awesome, right? Well, now it's 2009 and we've returned to some of those markets. Many of those radio fans don't turn up anymore. Yet, the hardcores or "1000 true fans" are still there, just like they have been since they organically founded The Dresden Dolls back in the day. They still line up outside for hours, know every word of every song (whether or not it has been released), and wait around for Amanda's autograph. They don't need a top down marketing plan to tell them what to like. And who are the new hardcore Dolls/ Amanda fans? They are the younger siblings and friends of the original fans, who continue to spread the gospel about an artist who's work they love so much they can't not talk about.
        - http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/07/an-insiders-view-of-amanda-palmers-success.html
        
        And, seriously, "millions?" That's just completely absurd. The Dresden Dolls put out two records on Roadrunner; Amanda put out one (and she paid for the recording costs out-of-pocket on that one, by the way). None of them approached the packaging and artwork of this release. And as far as I know, neither Amanda nor Brian have received a single penny in royalties from any of them. So, "millions" is pretty much total bullshit.
        
        "Statistical Proof That DIY Doesn't Pay"
        
        All this says is that having a team has its advantages. That's hardly newsworthy - Amanda has a team too. And it doesn't support a single thing you're saying.
        
        Here's the thing: in order to get to the level of having a team, you're going to have to work hard to get to that level. Before the internet, the only way to do that was to hope that a label somewhere offered you a "golden ticket." Even if you got one, you were likely going to be one of the 90% of bands on a major label that was unrecouped. Which means that you got nothing from recording artists' royalties. (If you were also a songwriter, you probably also got mechanicals - at a reduced rate, thanks to controlled composition clauses.) In return, you lost the rights to your music, and often lost many of the creative aspects of your music.
        
        That worked for very few. I don't know the BLS statistics for the 1990's (they recently redesigned their site and don't make old info available anymore). But in 2010, there were 176,200 workers who were musicians and singers. The vast majority of these worked for performing arts companies (think: orchestras/theaters) or "Religious, grantmaking, civic, professional, and similar organizations." The number of musicians who worked in the "Motion picture, video, and sound recording industries" were just 0.1% of professional musicians - or, roughly 400 people. (Source [Excel file].)
        
        Unless you're one of those people, you'd be completely out of luck. But now, you can do things like a Kickstarter campaign (or IndieGoGo or Sellaband or whatever), sell stuff through CD Baby, etc.
        
        Hell, even though you made fun of Tunecore, those ~300 people who made minimum wage from that site alone looks better and better in comparison.
        
        The old system was based almost entirely on a "golden ticket" myth - the notion that if you just get discovered by a big label, you'll be a success. That, of course, was always a lie. And, if you're thinking that the newer music models are also some sort of "golden ticket," then you're going to be very disappointed.
        
        But nobody here ever said it would be. Techdirt in particular has said very vocally that there is no such thing as a "golden ticket." It has always been hard to make a living off of music. It's always been hard to even break even.
        
        But for most musicians, it's slightly easier now than it used to be. The fact that it's still immensely difficult - and that most musicians won't succeed - doesn't change that fact.
        
        Now, if you want to actually help musicians, instead of just bitching about how that damn series of tubes is vacuuming up your wallet, then you should ignore complete tripe like that Trichordist site (assuming, of course, that you're not actually David Lowery yourself). I would suggest starting with the Tunecore blog, New Music Strategies, or Hypebot. Or at least some sites that actually offer answers instead of just throwing around accusations, insults, and slander.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If Amanda has raised close to one million herself, and she's still going to be broke, I'm fairly certain it's not absurd that a label would have easily spent multiples of millions over three albums. As Amanda's own numbers indicate, it's not cheap to finance the creation of music and support it.
        
        I would suggest that you actually educate yourself. But like the NIN and Radiohead experiments I'll be curious to see how this all nets out over the next year... let's see what it actually looks like on the other side.
        
        I think Amanda is a special, rare, and unique talent which is also why this model will not work for most bands who are, let's just say, less theatrical...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 6:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If Amanda has raised close to one million herself, and she's still going to be broke, I'm fairly certain it's not absurd that a label would have easily spent multiples of millions over three albums. As Amanda's own numbers indicate, it's not cheap to finance the creation of music and support it.
        
        It's expensive to make an expensive LP, art book, and tour. None of the previous records that Roadrunner did even approached this level of expense. And I doubt very much that a first-time band (even one as popular as The Dresden Dolls) managed to score over $333,333 per record as an advance. Plus, you're ignoring the fact that Amanda fronted all the recording costs of her solo record (which Roadrunner was supposed to pay back but didn't).
        
        So, even if they hadn't kept all the money from record sales - which they did - they wouldn't have spent "multiples of millions."
        
        I would suggest that you actually educate yourself.
        
        Yeah, thanks for the patronizing bullshit, but I'm pretty aware of how the music industry works, thanks. Not only did I work in it at one time (admittedly at the grunt level), but I personally know several people who were on major labels, and I also know a couple IP lawyers.
        
        Not that it makes a difference. Even if I never knew nobody in the industry, your arguments are still wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's completely within reason that the three previous albums would have had ADVANCES and EXPENSES (advanced) in excess of a million dollars each... after all, Amanda is pointing out very well that $750k doesn't really go that far...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's completely within reason that the three previous albums would have had ADVANCES and EXPENSES (advanced) in excess of a million dollars each... after all, Amanda is pointing out very well that $750k doesn't really go that far...
        
        Neither of those things are true. The advances and expenses she got for previous albums was much, much, much smaller.
        
        And she did NOT say that $750k doesn't go that far. In fact, she explains how far it goes. Can you not read?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 6:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Addendum:
        
        I think Amanda is a special, rare, and unique talent which is also why this model will not work for most bands who are, let's just say, less theatrical...
        
        Well, we agree about Amanda, at least.
        
        And, if you substitute "less theatrical" for "generic," then we agree completely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 24 May 2012 @ 5:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...that's exactly my point, I don't waste my time with crappy music as do others, so we just don't buy it. That could account for drop in sales, but you'd rather take the dramatic approach and blame all of the RIAA's ills on piracy, which is a smaller part of the problem."
        
        Really? I blame the drop in sales on piracy? Show me where I have ever made that assumption. You can't. As a matter of fact, not once have I ever defended the RIAA.
        
        Lowestofthekeys, Is fabricating whatever innuendo about a person whenever convenient your method of arguing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hmm I don't think it's ever worked along the lines of "Make your product cheaper or we'll just pirate it".
        
        Sure it has.
        
        Restaurants: Sell your food cheaper or I will duplicate your recipe at home.
        
        Auto parts: Sell your OEM parts cheaper or I will purchase from someone who has duplicated them and sells them cheaper.
        
        Movies: Sell your theater tickets cheaper or I will wait until it's on broadcast TV for free.
        
        Lawn Service: Mow my lawn at what I think is a fair price or I will mow it myself.
        
        I could go on....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:58am
  
  Re:
  It seems weird, and somewhat hypocritical to suggest fixed costs don't matter, then it turns out one of your fave artists spent 1/4 million before they even got to Kickstarter.
  
  When did ANYONE say that fixed costs don't matter? I didn't. I said fixed costs don't matter to the end user in determining how much they're willing to pay. And that's still true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 3:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    so then you have no point - if the consumer doesn't care about fixed costs why is it an issue? because you're next argument is that they actually do care about how much they pay... so they do care, because everyone wants everything either cheap or free... not news... if everyone could buy a porsche for the cost of a VW they would too... but not everyone can illegally obtain a porsche, so they have to buy the VW...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 10:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fixed costs are not an issue to the consumer, you stubborn twat, because people are not paying you to cover your fixed costs; they're paying for a product. People care about how much they pay because the amount of money a person has is finite.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2012 @ 12:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        right, so they do care about fixed costs than, because ultimately the fixed costs determine the marginal costs or do you not understand economics 101?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 3:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        right, so they do care about fixed costs than, because ultimately the fixed costs determine the marginal costs or do you not understand economics 101?
        
        WOW. Now I know you're trolling. Because econ 101 says *EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE* of what you just stated. Fixed costs have no bearing on marginal costs. None. Claiming otherwise is simply incorrect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 23 May 2012 @ 6:56am

recordings
problem is so many musicians are unable to articulate what they thing in an interesting musical way. this is why there is too many producers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 6:57am
  
  Re: recordings
  think
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 23 May 2012 @ 7:29am

High-end CD books? Art books? 'Thank you' cards? Oook.

BTW, printing an album does not cost and arm and a leg. You can print an album for at most a couple bucks per unit (*note* a major label distributor costs much less, about 15-25 cents per unit).

I understand that she's investing in fancy projects in order to give back to her fanbase but all the fancy packaging in the world means nothing if the music is substandard. It would be the equivalent of a B-grade movie released as a deluxe 'special edition' box-set with gold-plated discs and hardcover booklet included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:10am
  
  Re:
  All those are value added extras. How do you know her music is substandard? Is it? Some might think it is exceptional? "Substandard" is purely subjective.
  
  Have you ever seen Evil Dead? Army of Darkness? Piranha 3D? Those are considered "B-grade movies". Yet I find them to be more entertaining and have shelled out my hard earned dollars for the special edition versions of each of them. Why? Because they have a higher value to me than say "Green Lantern" or some other big-hit Hollywood blockbusters.
  
  Dismissing something because you don't think it's that great is ridiculous. It says a lot about your personality.
  
  And sorry to say, but the fact that Amanda Palmer received as much money as she did says that a lot of people beg to differ with your opinion on her "fancy projects" and "fancy packaging" and most definitely in regards to her "music is substandard".
  
  If you want to hate on someone just cause, feel free. Say "I think this person is an idiot, the people who donated are all idiots and wre wre wre. Why? Just because that's my opinion." But don't dismiss someone outright and try to pass off YOUR subjective feelings/opinions/beliefs as facts when they are anything but.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 23 May 2012 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    "All those are value added extras. How do you know her music is substandard? Is it? Some might think it is exceptional? 'Substandard' is purely subjective."
    
    That's true and I don't know how good (or not) her new album is. I'm just making a somewhat obvious statement, that fancy packaging cannot compensate for a lack of quality music, that's all.
    
    "Have you ever seen Evil Dead? Army of Darkness? Piranha 3D? Those are considered 'B-grade movies'. Yet I find them to be more entertaining and have shelled out my hard earned dollars for the special edition versions of each of them. Why? Because they have a higher value to me than say 'Green Lantern' or some other big-hit Hollywood blockbusters."
    
    I don't consider films such as Evil Dead nor AoD to be B-grade flicks. In fact, I consider them to be exceptional, particularly Evil Dead 2. Don't know about Pirhana 3D though.
    
    "Dismissing something because you don't think it's that great is ridiculous. It says a lot about your personality."
    
    Once again, I haven't heard it, so I don't know. Just saying that packaging doesn't equate to great music.
    
    "And sorry to say, but the fact that Amanda Palmer received as much money as she did says that a lot of people beg to differ with your opinion on her 'fancy projects' and 'fancy packaging' and most definitely in regards to her 'music is substandard'."
    
    I don't have an opinion, yet, because I haven't heard it.
    
    "If you want to hate on someone just cause, feel free. Say 'I think this person is an idiot, the people who donated are all idiots and wre wre wre. Why? Just because that's my opinion.' But don't dismiss someone outright and try to pass off YOUR subjective feelings/opinions/beliefs as facts when they are anything but."
    
    Your defensive rhetoric is meaningless. I stand by my original statement, regardless of who it applies to, because I believe that a musician's most important asset is his/her music, not whatever slick packagaing it comes housed in.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you're entire comment originally could be summed up as, "I haven't heard her music, so I don't know if it's good or not. But fancy packaging and extras can't make it better if it indeed does suck. But I can't say whether or not this applies in Amanda Palmer's case because I honestly don't know one way or another. I just wanted to say "fancy packaging won't make up for an inferior product"." That about sum it up?
      
      So why not have said that originally? Because from what I read it did indeed come off as sounding like you were saying her music is substandard and that she was trying to make up for that with fancy packaging. (Which is completely ridiculous. She isn't adding fancy packaging to make up for the music. She's adding fancy packaging and a plethora of extras to ADD to the music. And fancy packaging is one thing. But "High-end CD books? Art books? 'Thank you' cards? Oook." are all EXTRAS that are in no way just "fancy packaging".)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Michael, 23 May 2012 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So you're entire comment originally could be summed up as, "I haven't heard her music, so I don't know if it's good or not. But fancy packaging and extras can't make it better if it indeed does suck. But I can't say whether or not this applies in Amanda Palmer's case because I honestly don't know one way or another. I just wanted to say 'fancy packaging won't make up for an inferior product'." That about sum it up?"
        
        Pretty much, because I view this whole thing as a vanity project and nothing more. Poor Amanda, married to a millionaire and quite well-to-do in her own right. Granted it's great that independent artists can now circumvent the old-guard and get funding, but at least others are more reasonable in what they ask for, e.g. a few thousand to fund recording/production. They don't get carried away with stupid (yes, I said "stupid") packaging which in my opinion isn't worth the asking price. Anyway, why are you so defensive? Do you have a personal stake in her reputation or something?
        
        "So why not have said that originally? Because from what I read it did indeed come off as sounding like you were saying her music is substandard and that she was trying to make up for that with fancy packaging. (Which is completely ridiculous."
        
        Because I wanted to make the point is all. Nearly a million in funding just lends credence to the big-label notion that in order to create music of high-quality requires extraneous funding.
        
        "She isn't adding fancy packaging to make up for the music. She's adding fancy packaging and a plethora of extras to ADD to the music."
        
        Nonsense! The music is what it is regardless of the packaging.
        
        "And fancy packaging is one thing. But 'High-end CD books? Art books? 'Thank you' cards? Oook.' are all EXTRAS that are in no way just 'fancy packaging'.)"
        
        I know, they're wasted expenses. $823,591. For glitzy packaging and art books, not music. That's what I consider to be wasted money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For glitzy packaging and art books, not music. That's what I consider to be wasted money.
        
        I know quite a few visual artists who would vehemently disagree with you.
        
        Amanda has always been about much more than just the music. Her live shows are just as much theater as a musical performance (and in fact she's actually authored several musical plays). She is a musician first, certainly, but she's basically a multimedia artist.
        
        You can dislike her music. You can dislike the other artists whose hard work went into the other portions of this project. That's fine. But calling them all "wasted expenses" is ludicrous.
        
        Also, the "rich girl" criticism is just ridiculous. You don't need to be poor to produce good art. That is one of those ages-old myths that deserves to die.
        
        It's also not very accurate; she didn't grow up in poverty by any means, but she's not some product of wealthy nepotism, like, say, Lily Allen. She worked immensely hard for what she accomplished - and that's all that matters in this regard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 23 May 2012 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Amanda has always been about much more than just the music. Her live shows are just as much theater as a musical performance (and in fact she's actually authored several musical plays). She is a musician first, certainly, but she's basically a multimedia artist."
        
        All well and good, but how does that factor into her Kickstarter campaign?
        
        "You can dislike her music. You can dislike the other artists whose hard work went into the other portions of this project. That's fine. But calling them all 'wasted expenses' is ludicrous."
        
        "Wasted expenses" in my view, nothing more. Personally I'm after great new music.
        
        "Also, the 'rich girl' criticism is just ridiculous. You don't need to be poor to produce good art. That is one of those ages-old myths that deserves to die."
        
        First, I never said nor implied that you needed to be poor/rich in order to produce great art. I simply find it ridiculous that a wealthy person such as herself would ask her fans to put up $250,000. She's not designing a video game, she's not creating a movie, etc. She's creating an album. Heck, Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters) recorded an album in his friggin' basement.
        
        "It's also not very accurate; she didn't grow up in poverty by any means, but she's not some product of wealthy nepotism, like, say, Lily Allen. She worked immensely hard for what she accomplished - and that's all that matters in this regard."
        
        If you say so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All well and good, but how does that factor into her Kickstarter campaign?
        
        How does it not, exactly? These are the costs to produce the very things she promised to supporters of her Kickstarter campaign.
        
        "Wasted expenses" in my view, nothing more. Personally I'm after great new music.
        
        I guess you view anything more than a blank CD labeled with a felt-tip to be "wasted expenses." Good for you. Not everyone agrees with you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 24 May 2012 @ 6:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I guess you view anything more than a blank CD labeled with a felt-tip to be 'wasted expenses.' Good for you. Not everyone agrees with you."
        
        I feel that $250,000 is excessive. You don't? Ok.
        
        Besides, that wasn't even my original point. My original point was that the music is more important than the packaging.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 6:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That MAY have been your original point, but due to the fact that you are unable to clearly and explicitly express yourself, as has already been stated, your original point came off as "Her music is substandard and she's just trying to hide that fact with fancy packaging." Which is the reason people have been replying to you the way they have.
        
        You DID NOT make your original point in a way that was easily understood by others. If you have a problem with her getting as much as she did, so be it. But just realize you were making a relatively blanket statement about her and fancy packaging, a statement that obviously a rather large amount of people completely disagree with. As is evidence by the fact that plenty of people donated to her Kickstarter campaign and did so willingly and knowing full well what they would receive in return for their donations. "Fancy packaging" most definitely not being what they were getting back. Which I'm still kind of curious about. To you "fancy packaging" = private concerts, art books, custom artwork included with dual LPs, etc.
        
        Which is probably where Karl, or whomever it was, got the ""I guess you view anything more than a blank CD labeled with a felt-tip to be 'wasted expenses.'" Because again, that's how you're coming off and how your statements are being read as.
        
        And how your original point is at all relevant is also something that's making me curious. Yes, we all know that the music is what's important and not the packaging. But given that you've yet to hear her album, have more than likely NOT donated to it, and so on and so forth. How can you make such a blanket statement about it being "fancy packaging"? Your obvious problem is with the fact that she received, voluntarily, a large sum of money. End of story. And by gosh, you're entitled to your opinion, but try to be more clear in stating it and without making blanket statements about things you've yet to experience first hand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "My original point was that the music is more important than the packaging."
        
        except when you have to pay for it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Pretty much, because I view this whole thing as a vanity project and nothing more. Poor Amanda, married to a millionaire and quite well-to-do in her own right. Granted it's great that independent artists can now circumvent the old-guard and get funding, but at least others are more reasonable in what they ask for, e.g. a few thousand to fund recording/production. They don't get carried away with stupid (yes, I said "stupid") packaging which in my opinion isn't worth the asking price. Anyway, why are you so defensive? Do you have a personal stake in her reputation or something?"
        
        No, I don't have a personal stake. i just found it odd that you sounded like you were dismissing her and her project without having listened to her music once, and writing it all off as "fancy packaging". Which you did.
        
        "Because I wanted to make the point is all. Nearly a million in funding just lends credence to the big-label notion that in order to create music of high-quality requires extraneous funding."
        
        But that isn't the point you were making, the point you seemed to be making was a dismissive one. As I've repeated already. Regarding fancy packaging.
        
        You seem to be drawing that point, the one you just stated, based on how much she received. Others might realize that she got all that money from fans and non-fans because of all the extras she was offering and because of the fact that they wanted to donate to her. Nearly a million when all she needed was $250,000 DOES NOT lend credence to any of what you said beyond the fact that people will give to those they feel are worth of giving to and to causes they believe in. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, if anything the fact that she received nearly a million when all she needed was $250,000 says that you can make music of high-quality at a substantially lower amount than big labels would have you believe. That figure she wanted is proof of that. That she made more appears to be because people genuinely support her and what she's doing.
        
        "Nonsense! The music is what it is regardless of the packaging."
        
        I know! That's why I find it odd you're focusing on the "fancy packaging" and talking about "substandard" music. I agree, the music is what it is. In this case nothing changes about that. What I pointed out is that she's giving tons of extras along with her music. Which you seem to have a problem with.
        
        "I know, they're wasted expenses. $823,591. For glitzy packaging and art books, not music. That's what I consider to be wasted money."
        
        Those are wasted expenses IN YOUR EYES. In the eyes of those donated they are not. Obviously. Because if they were they wouldn't have donated so much. I mean geez! You want her to produce music and music only. No packaging for it, no art books, no personal thank you cards, no private concerts, etc. Which is what all that extra money is going to. It's going to all that extra stuff. So it's not "wasted expenses". She got what she needed for JUST the music and then some for all the extras.
        
        Which for some reason you can't comprehend and don't accept. Which brings me back to my point of you obviously have a personal problem with her and are trying to discredit her by saying she's wasting money and packaging substandard music with fancy extras. Or am I wrong? If I'm wrong say so, but that's how you're coming off.
        
        Why do I care? I don't particularly. I just don't like people dismissing or discrediting others when they haven't heard them or experienced them in some way, shape or form. Which is what you're doing. "SHE MADE $1 MILLION! HOW DARE SHE! SHE ONLY NEEDS THIS MUCH TO MAKE A GOOD ALBUM! SO OBVIOUSLY IT SUCKS AND SHE'S TRYING TO HIDE THAT FACT BY PACKAGING IT NICELY!" That's how you sound and have been sounding. Is that what you mean to sound like, probably not. But it is how one can interpret your comments so far to be.
        
        As I said, you could've easily stated your opinion and put it in a way that leads no room for people to misinterpret. You didn't. You can make things abundantly clear now or you can keep focusing on packaging. Choice is yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 23 May 2012 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "No, I don't have a personal stake. i just found it odd that you sounded like you were dismissing her and her project without having listened to her music once, and writing it all off as 'fancy packaging'. Which you did."
        
        I made a simple statement, that the music is ultimately what's important. Good packaging, while a nifty bonus, cannot compensate for a lack of musical ability. I didn't say one way or another whether her music in particular is any good.
        
        "But that isn't the point you were making, the point you seemed to be making was a dismissive one. As I've repeated already. Regarding fancy packaging."
        
        You can take it however you want. It's just a general statement, not a personal critique.
        
        "You seem to be drawing that point, the one you just stated, based on how much she received. Others might realize that she got all that money from fans and non-fans because of all the extras she was offering and because of the fact that they wanted to donate to her. Nearly a million when all she needed was $250,000 DOES NOT lend credence to any of what you said beyond the fact that people will give to those they feel are worth of giving to and to causes they believe in. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, if anything the fact that she received nearly a million when all she needed was $250,000 says that you can make music of high-quality at a substantially lower amount than big labels would have you believe. That figure she wanted is proof of that. That she made more appears to be because people genuinely support her and what she's doing."
        
        So be it.
        
        "I know! That's why I find it odd you're focusing on the 'fancy packaging' and talking about 'substandard' music. I agree, the music is what it is. In this case nothing changes about that. What I pointed out is that she's giving tons of extras along with her music. Which you seem to have a problem with."
        
        That's not my issue. I'm saying that no matter how it is that's involved, you cannot obfuscate bad music with great packaging/extras. So, if the music is of high quality on her album and people enjoy it, all well and good. But if not...
        
        "Those are wasted expenses IN YOUR EYES. In the eyes of those donated they are not. Obviously. Because if they were they wouldn't have donated so much."
        
        That's correct, in my opinion it's not worth the added expenses, but many feel otherwise. But then, many people also support Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, etc.
        
        "I mean geez! You want her to produce music and music only. No packaging for it, no art books, no personal thank you cards, no private concerts, etc. Which is what all that extra money is going to. It's going to all that extra stuff. So it's not 'wasted expenses'. She got what she needed for JUST the music and then some for all the extras."
        
        Not that it matters but I'm not wholly convinced of that.
        
        "Which for some reason you can't comprehend and don't accept. Which brings me back to my point of you obviously have a personal problem with her and are trying to discredit her by saying she's wasting money and packaging substandard music with fancy extras. Or am I wrong? If I'm wrong say so, but that's how you're coming off."
        
        I'm not against artists using Kickstarter and other crowd-funding in order to get projects rolling. But something about a millionaire asking fans to fund a vanity project rubs me the wrong way.
        
        "Why do I care? I don't particularly. I just don't like people dismissing or discrediting others when they haven't heard them or experienced them in some way, shape or form. Which is what you're doing. "SHE MADE $1 MILLION! HOW DARE SHE! SHE ONLY NEEDS THIS MUCH TO MAKE A GOOD ALBUM! SO OBVIOUSLY IT SUCKS AND SHE'S TRYING TO HIDE THAT FACT BY PACKAGING IT NICELY!" That's how you sound and have been sounding. Is that what you mean to sound like, probably not. But it is how one can interpret your comments so far to be."
        
        That's your observation of my previous posts. Oh well.
        
        "As I said, you could've easily stated your opinion and put it in a way that leads no room for people to misinterpret. You didn't. You can make things abundantly clear now or you can keep focusing on packaging. Choice is yours."
        
        I believe that I have the right to express my opinions on subject matter covered here, which I did. For whatever reason, you blew it way out of proportion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I blew it out of proportion by asking why you were hating? You've been nothing but dismissive of what was accomplished by Amanda Palmer, you've further been nothing but dismissive of my questioning what you mean or stating what you seem to be saying (you say you're stating otherwise, but that's not how you come off). I mean geez. You're very much entitled to your opinion, but at least be clear about it.
        
        So, fancy packaging doesn't make good music? Right? Again, that's all you had to say from the get go. Your original comment implied that Amanda's music was substandard. You can say that's not what you said all you want, but the implication was there. You then dismissed the amount she raised as I don't know being too much and being wasted on dumb stuff. Not your exact words, but more than implied. Do you see what I'm getting at here? You basically said things without saying them, according to you.
        
        All you had to say was "I think she received too much money, but if it works for her and her fans don't mind shelling out than more power to her. I don't think she deserves any of that money, because she's from a rich family and she's wasting it stupidly but c'est la vie."
        
        Nice and simple and states exactly what you mean to say. We could've avoided all this if you'd just said that or been up front about how you feel. Which is readily apparent. You dismiss things you don't like or that rub you the wrong way. End of story. On that note, let's not do this again sometime.
        
        But if being questioned and asked to clarify is considered blowing things way out of proportion to you than I hate to see how you fair in life and your future. People are going to question you a lot more, but I guess they along with me are just all riled up about something that's not important and which you can dismiss/blow off easily enough, am I right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 24 May 2012 @ 6:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I blew it out of proportion by asking why you were hating?"
        
        So anyone who doesn't fall in line with your sense of reasoning must be hating?
        
        "You've been nothing but dismissive of what was accomplished by Amanda Palmer, you've further been nothing but dismissive of my questioning what you mean or stating what you seem to be saying (you say you're stating otherwise, but that's not how you come off). I mean geez. You're very much entitled to your opinion, but at least be clear about it."
        
        How many different ways can I spell it out? The music is what's important to me, not the packaging. The packaging is just a bonus.
        
        "So, fancy packaging doesn't make good music? Right?"
        
        Right.
        
        "Again, that's all you had to say from the get go. Your original comment implied that Amanda's music was substandard. You can say that's not what you said all you want, but the implication was there. You then dismissed the amount she raised as I don't know being too much and being wasted on dumb stuff. Not your exact words, but more than implied. Do you see what I'm getting at here? You basically said things without saying them, according to you."
        
        Nonsense. I made a general statement with regards to the packaging and already told you that I haven't heard her music.
        
        "All you had to say was 'I think she received too much money, but if it works for her and her fans don't mind shelling out than more power to her. I don't think she deserves any of that money, because she's from a rich family and she's wasting it stupidly but c'est la vie.'"
        
        It's not about whether or not she deserves the money, it's that she could've financed this project without relying on her fans to foot the bill, yet she did. Other indie artists who use Kickstarter do not ask their fans for $250,000 in order to package their albums with thank you cards and art books. In general, they ask for a few thousand in order to fund their projects, which is reasonable.
        
        "Nice and simple and states exactly what you mean to say. We could've avoided all this if you'd just said that or been up front about how you feel. Which is readily apparent."
        
        Oh, so now I have to answer to you whenever I express an opinion you take exception to?
        
        "You dismiss things you don't like or that rub you the wrong way."
        
        And I take it you don't?
        
        "End of story. On that note, let's not do this again sometime."
        
        Once again, you're the one who blew this whole thing way out of proportion.
        
        "But if being questioned and asked to clarify is considered blowing things way out of proportion to you than I hate to see how you fair in life and your future. People are going to question you a lot more, but I guess they along with me are just all riled up about something that's not important and which you can dismiss/blow off easily enough, am I right?"
        
        ...Now either I'm missing something here or you feel that I must answer to you as if you were in a position of authority.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 1:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Once again, I haven't heard it, so I don't know. Just saying that packaging doesn't equate to great music."
      
      Neither does 95% of the crap released by the major labels.
      
      But that's not the point. The idea isn't that Kickstarter instantly translate into great music, but that it allows the artist more freedom than they'd get under the traditional systems. On top of that, while the major labels are whining about dropping CD sales, she's managing to sell physical product that's much in demand from her fans.
      
      "I don't have an opinion, yet, because I haven't heard it."
      
      Then, you argument could be completely false, as she may have produced a fantastic album that's complemented by equally fantastic packaging. Why don't you just hold fire on questioning her work until you know what it is?
      
      " I stand by my original statement, regardless of who it applies to, because I believe that a musician's most important asset is his/her music, not whatever slick packagaing it comes housed in."
      
      Indeed. But people don't pay for the music, they pay for the packaging, whether that packaging is a CD, a live concert or a limited edition vinyl. They always have, it's just that right now the packaging isn't necessary. The trick is to get people to pay for it, which is exactly what Palmer is doing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Michael, 24 May 2012 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Neither does 95% of the crap released by the major labels."
        
        Correction: 99%
        
        "But that's not the point. The idea isn't that Kickstarter instantly translate into great music, but that it allows the artist more freedom than they'd get under the traditional systems. On top of that, while the major labels are whining about dropping CD sales, she's managing to sell physical product that's much in demand from her fans."
        
        What really needs to happen is for an independent artist to come along and surpass every major label release in sales figures, downloads and popularity.
        
        "Then, you argument could be completely false, as she may have produced a fantastic album that's complemented by equally fantastic packaging. Why don't you just hold fire on questioning her work until you know what it is?"
        
        All I said was that the packaging couldn't compensate for lack of quality music, not that Amanda's music in particular sucks, although some have taken it that way.
        
        "Indeed. But people don't pay for the music, they pay for the packaging, whether that packaging is a CD, a live concert or a limited edition vinyl. They always have, it's just that right now the packaging isn't necessary. The trick is to get people to pay for it, which is exactly what Palmer is doing."
        
        Well, people would pay for the music, regardless of downloading, if the music were A) very good, and B) got good exposure. The problem today is that most of the music on offer, quite frankly, is horrendous. And it's all the major labels' fault because they're the ones responsible for transforming music into a corporate mainstream tool to suit their own agenda, cheapening the art in the process.
        
        How fortunate for us that more artists are shunning away from the labels and doing it on their own. The manistream media is no longer a necessity for the artist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What really needs to happen is for an independent artist to come along and surpass every major label release in sales figures, downloads and popularity."
        
        ...which isn't going to happen overnight, especially in the US where most of the traditional outlets are owned or dominated by major labels, and where things like radio airplay still count heavily toward mainstream charts. But, these kinds of campaigns are definitely a step in the right direction.
        
        I'd also question exactly why you think the above is necessary. These campaigns consist of an artist communicating directly with their fans, and being given the freedom to create art as they wish without signing their copyrights or creative control over to a 3rd party in return. Why does what the average Justin Beiber fan think about the end result matter?
        
        "All I said was that the packaging couldn't compensate for lack of quality music, not that Amanda's music in particular sucks, although some have taken it that way."
        
        Probably because at this point you have nothing to go on. All we know is that fans have paid a premium to get a high quality package that contains music of unknown quality. The fact that you're focussing on the "what if the music is bad?" possibility rather than the "what if it's good?" option is what people are focussing on here.
        
        "Well, people would pay for the music, regardless of downloading, if the music were A) very good, and B) got good exposure"
        
        That would be an *or*, not an *and*. Anyway, the proof is yet to come. Palmer has not sold every single copy of her album that will ever be sold, and these stories keep her in the news and gives her excellent exposure. Time will tell if this translates into sales, but her fans are happy for now. So, why do you have a problem?
        
        "How fortunate for us that more artists are shunning away from the labels and doing it on their own. The manistream media is no longer a necessity for the artist."
        
        I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why it's a little bit of a mystery as to why you're so negative as to how the artist chooses to package her work in order to reward loyal fans and encourage financing outside of that system.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:59am
  
  Re:
  "You can print an album for at most a couple bucks per unit (*note* a major label distributor costs much less, about 15-25 cents per unit)."
  
  So? Is Palmer now only meant to be selling at cost now, or something? She's selling at the price the market will bear, which is how business is meant to be. The difference is, I don't think she'd be whining to get laws changed to "protect" her if the value dropped.
  
  "It would be the equivalent of a B-grade movie released as a deluxe 'special edition' box-set with gold-plated discs and hardcover booklet included."
  
  I'd buy that.
  
  Seriously, I'm a big fan of cult and horror cinema. One of my favourite labels of recent times is Arrow Films, a UK-based distributor who go above and beyond with everything they do, from packaging and special features to getting films released in the UK uncut for the first time. I have bought, get this, *films I don't even like* purely for the packaging and special features and to complete my collection of their catalogue. Oh, and by b-grade cinema, I'm not talking about Evil Dead and Piranha. I'm talking about Street Trash, Forbidden Zone, House By The Cemetery and Pieces.
  
  Don't try to make assumptions about what fans want just because they differ from your tastes, and frankly if a true fan is offered a turd that's gold plated, many will still buy just for the gold plating or to be completists. It's when you try only selling the turd and give nobody a reason to part with money that you run into trouble.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 24 May 2012 @ 6:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    "So? Is Palmer now only meant to be selling at cost now, or something? She's selling at the price the market will bear, which is how business is meant to be. The difference is, I don't think she'd be whining to get laws changed to 'protect' her if the value dropped."
    
    I never argued in favor of the major labels.
    
    "I'd buy that.
    
    Seriously, I'm a big fan of cult and horror cinema. One of my favourite labels of recent times is Arrow Films, a UK-based distributor who go above and beyond with everything they do, from packaging and special features to getting films released in the UK uncut for the first time. I have bought, get this, *films I don't even like* purely for the packaging and special features and to complete my collection of their catalogue. Oh, and by b-grade cinema, I'm not talking about Evil Dead and Piranha. I'm talking about Street Trash, Forbidden Zone, House By The Cemetery and Pieces."
    
    Fine, let me rephrase it from "B-grade" to "craptastic". BTW, all of those are examples of you making an informed purchase where you have advance knowledge as to what you're getting.
    
    "Don't try to make assumptions about what fans want just because they differ from your tastes, and frankly if a true fan is offered a turd that's gold plated, many will still buy just for the gold plating or to be completists. It's when you try only selling the turd and give nobody a reason to part with money that you run into trouble."
    
    Which was sort of my original point, but I digress.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 7:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I never argued in favor of the major labels."
      
      I never said you did.
      
      "Fine, let me rephrase it from "B-grade" to "craptastic"."
      
      Some people would apply that description to every film I mentioned. Art is very subjective.
      
      "BTW, all of those are examples of you making an informed purchase where you have advance knowledge as to what you're getting."
      
      Lay off the assumptions. I had, in fact, never seen Pieces or Forbidden Zone before I ordered the discs (the latter is still waiting on pre-order). I don't particularly care for Street Trash as a film, either, although I had seen that years before.
      
      My point is - I bought them *for the packaging*. Street Trash is not a particularly good film despite a few moments of greatness, and I find it a chore to sit through because the characters are so annoying. I'm still happy with my purchase because the packaging and special features make up for the lacklustre quality of the film itself. Had the packaging not been there, I probably wouldn't have bought it at all.
      
      "Which was sort of my original point, but I digress"
      
      Then, I'm afraid your point is getting confused. Palmer's fans are giving her money to record and tour music. In return for that, they are getting a higher quality level of packaging and extras than they would under normal circumstances. Given that Palmer is getting the money in order to finance the music in the first place, I'm not sure what your problem with this is - if fans waited until the album was created before buying , the album wouldn't be created as the funding wouldn't be there...
      
      Again, if the fans are positive about this, why are you so negative? Is there some other method you have in mind that would guarantee music quality without depending on packaging to pre-sell? Because I can't think of one right now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 23 May 2012 @ 6:29pm

Guys, there are trolls and there are shills and then there's the genius going on about The Pirate Bay and contracts. Can we just flag the comments of his that aren't even trying to have a reasonable debate? I'm not one for reporting but seriously, we've got another thread hijacking in progress and it's quite sad. An article about an artists telling her fans how she's going to put the money they gave her to use and it's being ruined by one guy. The same idiot who hijacked El-P's article.

Pretty disrespectful of you AC. I guess we see how much you hate artists, and how unethical you are. And no, you're not dragging me into your world of spelling and grammatical errors or stupidity. I won't even attempt to reason with an obviously unreasonable person or someone who's willing to discuss things and present ACTUAL facts. Sorry I don't play that game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:31pm
  
  Re:
  How very SOPA of you to censor an opposing point of view. Not very OPEN I must say... It figures, hypocrites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 23 May 2012 @ 8:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Lol. You're still trying to conflate reported and still viewable with outright censored (meaning there is nothing there at all and thus obviously not even remotely viewable). It's kind of sad really that you can't tell the difference. Tell me, did you always struggle in school? Did the teacher have to take extra time to help you understand the day's lessons? Because that's the only logical explanation for you not being able to grasp the difference, despite the fact that I have explained it to you multiple times and going on multiple days in a row now.
    
    SOPA allowed for censorship the likes of which meant that you WOULD NOT be able to comment at all. That you can still comment here negates your comment.
    
    Also, there is nothing wrong with having an opposing point of view, I and others here welcome it. HOWEVER, if all you're doing is hijacking a thread with your usual "how much does the pirate bay pay artists" bit (which is what you're doing so far) then sorry to say but you deserve to be reported. You're adding nothing to the conversation and reiterating the same talking points. Look, we get it. We've heard you the other 100 times you made the same comment in El-P's thread, which you rudely and disrespectfully hijacked. Record labels bad. The Pirate Bay worse. Artists getting screwd. Wre wre wre. We know already. Now can you move on? Either to a new talking point and preferably done with a bit of logic and better evidence or from this site in general. Take your pick.
    
    And sorry to say, but bitching about exploitation of artists done by The Pirate Bay while not wagging a finger at the labels who routinely exploit them (to the point that we have articles on a regular basis about artists having to SUE to get royalties due to them, per their negotiated contracts) shows who the real hypocrite here is. I'll give you a hint. It's you.
    
    You're not very good at this trying to turn things around on people game. I recommend you stop playing or just quit before you get verbally beat down in as polite but logical a manner as possible
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 9:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      if it's not a big deal, why censor the comments at all?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 24 May 2012 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look, I'm going to say it just one last time and hope it gets through that thick head of yours.
        
        REPORTING COMMENTS AND HAVING TO CLICK ON THEM TO VIEW THEM IS NOT THE SAME AS CENSORING THEM. WHY? THE COMMENTS ARE STILL THERE, THEY HAVEN'T DISAPPEARED INTO THE NETHER, AND ARE STILL VIEWABLE, AND POSTABLE, BY ANYONE.
        
        CENSORSHIP MEANS NOTHING IS THERE. IT IS NOT VIEWABLE. A PERSON IS PREVENTED FROM POSTING A COMMENT AT ALL. ETC.
        
        There is a huge difference between the two. Now, if you don't want your comments reported, try and stay on topic, avoid ad homs, and try and actually discuss/debate things. Going on and on about the pirate bay or illegal exploitation or off on tangents that aren't even remotely related to the article or anything that is being discussed is not going to fly.
        
        There, now let this be the last time you confuse reported and viewable with censorship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2012 @ 3:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        so you're ok with filtering and partial censorship then? ok, that really clears things up...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 8:29pm

How do you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chargone (profile), 27 May 2012 @ 11:44am

ugh.

i know why anonymous posts are allowed here.
i know why there's no real ban system in place.
i actually agree with that whole chain of logic.

comment threads like this make me really wish i didn't

*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dillion Dog, 6 Oct 2012 @ 12:47pm

Amanda Palmer is a liar. She lied about the million dollars. She's lied about her Sea Org family. Now she's lying about where the money went to ($300.00 per accompanying book, over $100,000.00 for thank you cards. ) Palmer is a pathological liar and is deeply untalented. 80% of her Twitter followers are fake. There is no million dollars. She is verbally trying to money launder something that never existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Oct 2012 @ 11:20pm
  
  Re:
  She lied about the million dollars.
  
  That was all done on Kickstarter. You think Kickstarter lied about it? Really?
  
  You need some serious help.
  
  Palmer is a pathological liar and is deeply untalented.
  
  I know her, and have seen her perform multiple times. I disagree on both accounts. I've never seen her be anything less than truthful (sometimes to a fault) and I believe she's quite talented -- but that, obviously, is a matter of opinion. I'm not sure why your subjective judgment on her talent should then lead you to accuse her of all sorts of things not supported by a single fact.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 6 Oct 2012 @ 11:51pm
  
  Re:
  Amanda Palmer is a liar.
  
  You know, I was going to write this whole long post, but then I realized that you're just an utter loon.
  
  I have been acquainted with Amanda for a very long time - before she even met Brian. I know, personally, that what you are saying is total, 100% bullshit.
  
  But I think that everyone else knows it too. I mean, she would have to buy out Kickstarter, Sea Org, Twitter, and the federal government in order for your accusations to be true.
  
  It's pretty obvious that you're just a guy who wants people to admire the shininess of his tin-foil hat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 8 Oct 2012 @ 2:34am
  
  Re:
  ...and I suppose you'll happily cite evidence for all of your claims, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yadda, 17 Jul 2013 @ 9:12am

Amanda Palmer is a lying scumbag. Her latest claim to the Guardian is that the million dollars went to "packaging."

"But the $1.2m," I say.

"I immediately spent all that money on the packaging and the mailing, and it was all gone six weeks later."

"Really?" I say.

Everything that comes out of Amanda Palmer's mouth is a lie. Gawker called her on this and found that no packaging in the world costs this much.

There are two possibilities. Either Amanda Palmer never received the money and staged the million dollar Kickstarter using her and Gaiman's Scientology contacts, or she is verbally laundering the money and using it for herself.

Everything about Palmer is tasteless and classless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:31am

As someone who runs a label and produces both vinyl and CD with high quality delux packaging, in those sort on quantities I can fully assure you that the production cost is about half of what is stated in this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]