Apparently If You Explain Many Ways That Artists Can Make Money Outside Of Copyright, You're Against Artists Getting Paid
from the insanity dept
I recognize that it's easy to jump to simplified caricatures of nuanced positions, but there's one argument that I find particularly nefarious and disgusting. It's the idea that folks like myself "don't want artists to get paid." That seems to be one of the insinuations in this article, interviewing a noted copyright system supporter, in which I am set up as the foil on the other side. The argument is falsely made that those, like myself, who argue against copyright's excesses and for people to look at all the new opportunities out there, somehow "get upset when musicians and filmmakers try to earn a living."There's a massive false premise cooked into that claim: it's that any argument in favor of preventing copyright's excesses, or any thoughts about how content creators might make money outside of copyright somehow (bizarrely and incorrectly) means that you want artists to not get paid. However, since I'm used as "the example" of that position in the linked article, I'm curious how one can explain the fact that we regularly celebrate example, after example, after example, after example, after example of artists making money (sometimes lots of it).
There's a complete strawman being set up here, and it's incredibly frustrating. Those of us who believe that arguing over a mythologized past that never really was and certainly never will be again -- in which most artists were completely shut out of the market entirely -- is a waste of time, are falsely being branded as being anti-artist. This is bullshit. It's a more nefarious version of the argument made by the labels and the studios that they represent artist's interests. The reason this argument is made is because these new opportunities that we see for artists, which we regularly highlight and celebrate, quite often (though not always) involve routing around the traditional gatekeepers. So their response is to falsely attack us by claiming that we're the ones arguing against artists.
Yet, whenever we bring up all of these examples of artists making money through new technologies and services, rather than celebrating those successes, the folks who claim to be arguing for the artists (when they're really just arguing in favor of protectionism for gatekeepers) suddenly become insulting towards those artists. They argue that these success stories don't count or are exceptions to the rule. They quite frequently mock their talents and suggest that the only reason they had to go an alternate route is because their art isn't good.
I recognize that this is how things work in political fights -- where people use facile simplifications based on lies to characterize your position -- but I'm hoping we can put an end to the ridiculous claims about folks like myself being upset when artists make money. My position is the exact opposite. I want artists to make money. I want them to make lots of money, and I think there are all sorts of opportunities for them to do so. What I worry about is, if they don't adapt and continue rely on an obsolete and broken system, that it's a lot more difficult to make money that way. But to twist that into claiming that we don't want artists to make money is a ridiculous smear.
No one "gets upset" when artists try to earn a living. What we worry about is when they try to change laws in a ways that harm others, and which don't actually help them earn a living. Does telling someone that jumping off a bridge is not a good way to fly mean that we're against people flying? Especially if we point out example after example of people flying in airplanes? I don't think so, and I think it's worth calling it out as a lie when people make that argument.
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: business models, copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they are so worried about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they are so worried about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they are so worried about it
uh huh...
with that kind of 'thinking', i believe you'll make master of the universe in jig time, you sociopathetic authoritarian...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If they are so worried about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If they are so worried about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's not "push it"
And if we're talking about movies - entire industry is based on concept of "pay to watch". All this "pirate bay as promotion" work only because its illegal.
Should pirate bay modus operandi become legal tomorrow, all Hulu/Netfix and similar pay-for-streaming shops will have little reason to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
for example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
when-your-pay-what-you-want-experiment-is-too-successful-ways-you-didnt-expect.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
He was linking to it as an example of success...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
And btw, for games?! you mean software engineers will be paid "what you want"? really? or maybe you think it's "artists" create graphic engines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
There is no reason that pay what you want would not pay a software engineer just fine. In fact, that is what most MMO games are going to......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
Holy hell, Amazon has spent a ton of time, money, infrastructure, etc behind making their services awesome. It's why I use them. I throw my money at Amazon because they have an awesome service (I wish their content selection would get better, but that's the studios' fault). No torrent site or p2p network even comes close. Eliminating copyright wouldn't do a thing to making those torrent sites better in the ways Amazon has (though it would make Amazon's selection better, but again, that is the studios' fault).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
You are just making stuff up. I have cable and stream HD from Netflix all the time. We often have multiple HD video streams going at once from Netflix or Amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
No, they would still exist. Plenty of people would want access to a streaming service, because not everyone wants to buy lots of hard drives to store their media (unlike me, I'm in the middle of getting components for a 20TB home server). So those kinds of services would still exist, as there'd still be a demand for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
2) I hope you use something like ZFS and have ECC memory for that 20TB system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
That's completely false. People will pay for a curated service, and they will pay for the benefit of accessing their content anywhere on any device. Both of those features are natural fits for streaming services, and not so much for download services.
And as for the rest of your comment... There's lots of ways to make money, read some of the articles around here once in a while! Concerts are an obvious way, but by far not the only way. I've never been to a Jonathan Coulton concert, but he's gotten more money out of me than any other recording artist in the last ten years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
Actually most of what we've discussed are neither commercials nor concert tickets.
While I agree that it should be primary income source for musicians, in my book "one" is not "many many".
I actually don't think live "should" be the primary income source for musicians. I think it can be for some, but whether or not it should be is a different question altogether. And you still haven't proved that there aren't many, many -- you just ignored all of them.
And if we're talking about movies - entire industry is based on concept of "pay to watch". All this "pirate bay as promotion" work only because its illegal.
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Should pirate bay modus operandi become legal tomorrow, all Hulu/Netfix and similar pay-for-streaming shops will have little reason to exist.
How so? If they can provide a better experience (they do) as well as the notion that you're supporting the content creators more that way -- then it seems like there are plenty of reasons for them to exist.
I go back to the Spotify vs. The Pirate Bay example in Sweden. Despite both being from there, and getting tremendous usage, music piracy in Sweden fell off a cliff when Spotify became the standard there. It's legal, but it provides a much better experience.
Similarly, we see tons of people supporting artists through things like crowdfunding. Amanda Palmer flat out encourages people to "pirate" her works -- and still brought in $1.2 million. Why? Because people want to support her. So, even in her case where piracy is de facto "legal" people still pay. So your argument that the free services automatically mean no legit ones doesn't seem to be supported by the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
What happen to "advertizing is a content" idea? What happen to "access to musician is a scarcity"?
>> It's legal, but it provides a much better experience.
I don't think that idea "founder goes to jail" is what "legal" means.
>> Amanda Palmer ...
Mike, do you sleep with her or something? Please find another example, this one is overused.
>> ... through things like crowdfunding
Like I say before, option c) is begging. I'm glad it's working for Amanda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
Mike, do you sleep with her or something? Please find another example, this one is overused.
>> ... through things like crowdfunding
Like I say before, option c) is begging. I'm glad it's working for Amanda."
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/beatsnoir/beats-noir-we-are-finishing-our-second-alb um
There ya go buddy. I personally know these guys and they were able to sell themselves with kickstarter through various venues they play at throughout Colorado.
Also, you can't coax someone into investing by "begging", but you can definitely interpret it that way if you're ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
We can add this to the list of The Masnick Effect. Bring up a small band and it won't work for big name acts. Bring up a famous band and it won't work for up and coming artists. Mention somebody you've talked about before and it doesn't count because it's overused. What's next, mention somebody new and it doesn't count because there's no track record of reporting on them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
If that's begging, then all of business is pretty much based on begging. What are people doing when they are selling investments? Begging. What are advertisements doing? Begging. Etc.
"Begging" is asking for something and offering nothing in return. What Palmer and those who engage in similar methods are doing is not that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
Nothing happened to them. You seem to now be proving my point.
Mike, do you sleep with her or something? Please find another example, this one is overused.
Ha. Can't actually respond on point, so this is what you come back with?
I guess I win.
Like I say before, option c) is begging. I'm glad it's working for Amanda.
If getting your fans to support you is "begging" so is pretty much all business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
I guess I win.
No, no Mike. You should reply "I wish I was" but then again we know you are married with kids so that could get you in trouble at home hahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
A) misdirection: What happen to "advertizing is a content" idea? What happen to "access to musician is a scarcity"?
B) misunderstanding: I don't think that idea "founder goes to jail" is what "legal" means.
Mike was talking about Spotify, not TPB, btw.
C) accusation: Mike, do you sleep with her or something?
D generalisation: Like I say before, option c) is begging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not "push it"
I think there should be paradigm shift for both things.
"Advertizing" to make you more and better known, not part of the final product that should be sold. If people like your music, they will buy it. If not, you should keep on with your life. Besides, there's always been Crowd-Advertizing that spread the product around your own contacts and made it more known. I don't understand why eventually the Publishers want to kill a practice that has been around for like since the first days of humanity.
"Access to musician is a scarcity". With Technology, you can copy the tracks without any cost or loss involved, at the same quality as the original. I know that there is still the "dilluted-value" fear, but here is where you ask yourself if that's really happening or it's all the opposite. Time after time it's been proven that a content that gets spread a lot improves it's value.
I don't think that idea "founder goes to jail" is what "legal" means.
It depends on what does the government defines what's legal and not. Such is a flaw of the current democracy system. If you can influence the government, you can write the rules, even if the do not make any sense or are unconstitutional.
Mike, do you sleep with her or something? Please find another example, this one is overused.
*avoiding the ad-hom, there is no point to refute something like this*
Still, there has been more than one successful cases of Crowdfunding and CwF+RtB being told here. Amanda is probably the most prominent of them all.
Like I say before, option c) is begging. I'm glad it's working for Amanda.
Saying that "Crowfunding = Begging" is like saying "Copyright-Infrignment = Steal".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
In order:
A) Offer a low-cost DRM-Free download with no hurdles (earned more then a million dollars in 12 days, rather then getting only one sale and being pirated)
B)Offer a pay-what-you-want product, with bonus content if you pay more.
C)Connect with fans and get them invested in your project/product (which is how Apple got big, BTW)
D)Use the power of the internet to find a niche and connect with fans without a record label
E)Connecting with fans, Touring
F)Connecting with fans, and get them invested in your project/product
G)Offer a pay-what-you-want product to encourage word-of-mouth sales growth
H)Connect with fans, get them invested in your project/product, have them directly finance your project
I)Connect with fans, get them invested..
Your right, there only seems to be one way to make money outside of a gatekeeper. Connecting with fans. You know what the funny thing is? In music, that is how you make money when you have a major label backing you. It often is the way in other industries as well. Why do movie/TV studios want Joss Wheadon or Tim Burton? They have fans, and its that connection that helps drive sales. You just have to be proactive about it when you are independent. You have to cultivate them, rather then flinging shit until the fans start appearing like mold. Joss Wheadon and Tim Burton have definite styles, which appeal to specific consumers and those consumers have networked a whole fan base.
Johnathan Coulton is the same way, but he cultivated his fan base like growing a Bonzai tree (ok, he likely didn't fight that hard). Once you have that fan base, there are many approaches to making money. And Gatekeepers are only one option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
www.abneypark.com
Of course that means that they also aren't contributing to record company profits or copyright trolls either, just keeping their money.
They've also expanded their market into books and games based on their bands science-fictional back story as well as the usual t-shirts and such.
Your idea that "all Hulu/Netfix and similar pay-for-streaming shops will have little reason to exist." if piracy were legal is hilarious, there are plenty of people who can barely get around online let alone download stuff in quantity and get it to a TV and there are plenty of capable people who would rather pay for the convenience of netflix than deal with constantly trying to download content to a media server and stream it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not "push it"
They're virtually legal now and Hulu/Netfix and similar pay-for-streaming shops are doing just fine.
People tip their wait staff despite the lack of legal compulsion. A bad analogy in many ways but you get my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The main reason that Americans have the right to bear arms is to enable the replacement of politicians by force if it becomes necessary. The founding fathers were all too aware of the danger of politicians that ruled rather than represented the people, as that is what they were fighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it's a fatalistic, unrealistic, and dangerous fantasy and I wish those who engage in it would spend their energy on more productive reform efforts.
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The US military swears to uphold the constitution. If the government goes off the rails to the point there is violent uprising then I am willing to bet a large part of the military will fight for the people and not for the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Syria and Libya are very dirty dictatorships brutally murdering their own people in the most nefarious criminal ways. If something happened in USA it is more likely to resemble what happened in Egypt or Tunesia since the loyalty of the armed forces is seen as "for the people".
Another reason is that the free press is the best protection against bloodshed. The choises of the press in an internal conflict is what will decide the main battles today in civilized societies! Press actually include everyone with a mobile phone and internet access today.
Said in other words: A camera and internet connection is worth many billions of assault rifles today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the tide where to turn against the government, it could very well go on the offensive by branding oppositional leaders as "terrorist" and squash any uprisings quickly before they spread. The anti-terrorist laws already have given the executive branch the authority to tap telecom networks for wholesale dragnet ops to find anyone they deem as a threat to "national security", and then hunt them with prejudice if they so choose. All they have to do is just say the word--"terrorist".
The Supreme Court has none little to steam executive overreach, and Congress keeps renewing the laws with little fuss. As long as the majority and the press tremble at every boogieman touted by the executive branch, nothing will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
An armed populace does act as a moderating force on a government, as well as a free press does. Threatening not to re-elect them also has an effect, witness the SOPA/PIP/ACTA mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's "populace," and no, the government doesn't have more guns. There are 50 million civilian gun owners in this country, with hundreds of millions of guns between them. If even a tenth of the gun owners in this country decided to overthrow the government, it would fall in about a month.
And as for the tired argument of "but the government has tanks and missiles," if there's one thing this country learned in Vietnam, it's that cumbersome flashy military hardware means virtually nothing against an untrained civilian force utilizing small arms and improvised explosives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No but it likely could be construed as felony interference with the business model of doctors fixing broken bones of amateur super heros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am exceptionally glad to see, even in a copyright proponent, an admission that the laws are excessive in both duration and reach. I'm almost willing to agree with the right enshrined in the UDHR, but my support of that right ends at the right to be recognised as the author of a work.
I also have to disagree with his position that "if creators didn't have any rights to their work, they'd have nothing to sell", if only because people like Mike have done a lot of good work exposing and explaining how there are things to sell in a world where what was once the product has become non-scarce. But Levine is right in that they would no longer have copyrights to sell; that much is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also consider the 9/11 report:-
The report is available free of charge online, or can be purchased as a paperback (ISBN 0-393-32671-3). In addition, Barnes and Noble has independently published the report in hardcover with an index (ISBN 0-7607-6806-4).
The first two versions were published simultaneously, the Barns and Noble latter if I remember correctly. As a goverment publication it is in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like your thoughtful response in general, but Levin'e opinion is also a red herring. Nobody is arguing about whether "artists have a natural right to their work." We are arguing about to what degree copyright allows creators and gatekeepers to claim and control the property of consumers.
The natural right of artists to their work has never been extended to claiming ownership of every copy of a work until recently. It's a radical new idea, and a bad one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It depends exactly what you mean by that phrase. If you mean a natural right to control what others can do with copies of the work, yes I would definitely argue with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Care to point out the misrepresentation? I'd love to see some proof of this claim. This is also what Mike was talking about in this article - that those who criticise copyright are automatically telling falsehoods (which is itself a false statement). Mike constantly points out the many problems modern copyright laws have become, what with speech being silenced instantly upon complaint via the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Twain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Levine didn't jump on Sandoval's insinuations and made some great arguments for compromise and common sense. Basically, let's make copyright more reasonable, meaning both sides of the issue have to give something up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least he's showing a little moderation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes! How great is that? They say Mike is now a "spokesman for the copy left." I use "copyleft" to mean something else, so I'm not sure that's correct. Regardless, the point is that if you're looking for a "spokesman" for the anti-copyright/pro-piracy crowd, then Mike's your guy. Between this and the Google-shill-gate fiasco, I'm LMAO. One day Pirate Mike will just come out of the closet and let his pirate-freak flag fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure you're right. That'd be like Rush Limbaugh saying, "You know what? My detractors have made good points that I will concede." No matter how true, Mike will never, ever concede a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So CNET has come out and said Masnick is a zealot.
Yes! How great is that? They say Mike is now a "spokesman for the copy left." I use "copyleft" to mean something else, so I'm not sure that's correct. Regardless, the point is that if you're looking for a "spokesman" for the anti-copyright/pro-piracy crowd, then Mike's your guy. Between this and the Google-shill-gate fiasco, I'm LMAO. One day Pirate Mike will just come out of the closet and let his pirate-freak flag fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, that comment is ad hom filled, which is why it got reported.
Stop being an idiot and get a frakking clue as to what censorship is. If there was truly censorship taking place here your idiocy of reposting comments that have been reported and AJ's ad hom comments would NEVER be viewable, much less allowed, in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That and high-fiving the other trolls ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, they said he was a "spokesman for the copy left."
The term "copy left" is a cute way to refer to people who are "against the copyright," but the "copy left" is the moderate, conservative position in this debate. It's against a radical suspension of free speech and private property rights without serious debate and exploring alternatives.
The zealots are all on the other side - the rightsholder says no, so it's therefore morally wrong, illegal, etc., and if you say one word in protest you are a liar - not just wrong, but a LIAR, because everyone knows the rightsholder is infallible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
But if the artist eschews the RIAA/MPAA and embraces the crumbs given by Big Search, you're on their side.
If a big company puts up a paywall that blocks Big Search, you're against the artists in that company using that paywall to make money. But if they come over to Big Search and cut Big Search into the ad sales profits, you're okay with it.
It would be more accurate to say that you're all for artists making money if Big Search gets the droit de seigneur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
You mean the traditional paths that Assert that digital sales are only licences, except when they pay the artist because then those purchases are sales (with lower royalty rates)?
Or perhaps you mean the traditional paths that think that a radio show is advertisement, except when you play that same show on the internet. Then you need to pay royalties.
Or Perhaps you mean the traditional paths that only distribute money to the top 10% of artists because its to much work to figure out how much of those royalties are actually owed to what artists?
The modern (read: not tied to a physical disc) means of distribution have been balked at every turn by the RIAA and MPAA. THis site argues that their current business model of windowed releasing and providing content only when, where, and how they feel like it is encouraging piracy. RIAA and MPAA have failed to adopt any of the proven new revenue streams instead choosing to shut them down, limit them, and provide a visually but technically hamstrung alternative, which then fails and "proves" their point.
Mike has no problem with Beiber making money. But the current system means Beiber makes money at the expense of smaller artists. Those smaller artists have been branching out, causing the music industry overall to grow while the RIAA shrinks. But piracy is the problem, not that artists who can't get paid went elsewhere.
But if the artist eschews the RIAA/MPAA and embraces the crumbs given by Big Search, you're on their side.
If a big company puts up a paywall that blocks Big Search, you're against the artists in that company using that paywall to make money. But if they come over to Big Search and cut Big Search into the ad sales profits, you're okay with it.
By 'Big Search' you mean Google right? Because I think they are the only 'big' search company seriously making money as an advertiser. Most of the ad companies I've worked with are independent of a search engine...
And moreover, you seem to be jumping to newspapers in your argument about paywalls. I can't think of a time Mike or anyone else at Tech Dirt argued against paywalls of any type relating to music or movies. Most articles about paywalls describe a business who is failing using them and pointing to a similar site flourishing without them. He is pointing to actual market forces working at work, not suggesting that "Big Search" is the new gatekeeper.
It would be more accurate to say that you're all for artists making money if Big Search gets the droit de seigneur.
I doubt Big Search was raping Johnathan Coultan's Daughter if that is what you are suggesting.
Again, most of what Mike suggests has nothing to do with Ad Revenue. Its about getting them to want to pay for your stuff. Once you have cultivated that fanbase, a gatekeeper provides no added value to your income stream. Mike has said on multiple occasions that the legacy gatekeepers can help get some people their start. But smaller markets can not be served by the big companies. The CONSUMER (who mike is most concerned with) is not being treated well either. Google ads makes no money if I go to www.heatherdale.com and buy her album. She is independent. But somehow, she is a google shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
Yes, that's what he means. For some reason, he hates even uttering the word "Google". Probably because if he says Google rather than a vague "Big Search", his comments sound even more ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
You're claiming it's possible for Bob to sound more ludicrous than he already does? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
Please provide an example of this. I've never seen it happen. I have seen a lot of complaining about RIAA & MPAA (and others) being abusive, but that's a very different thing from complaining about artists making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
Normally when an article is about paywalls, you're all over it (I remember you calling libraries paywalls)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
You being an idiot isn't amusing anymore.
"If a big company puts up a paywall that blocks Big Search, you're against the artists in that company using that paywall to make money."
Paywalls don't work.
If someone puts a paywall up on a website, I'll go find another website that lets me access that information/pictures/whatever for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
Paywalls don't work."
Exactly. Stating that paypalls don't work does not mean you OPPOSE them.
Bob is basically saying that if you inspect a dam, you're in favor of the dam bursting.
Again, it's the same old song from him - it's wrong to say anything negative about rightsholders. No critical talk allowed in the presence of the King. When bob's dad beat him, it worked liked crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, you get upset when artists make money...
No, he doesn't. He constantly writes articles about artists succeeding and making money and praises them for it.
"if they make money through traditional paths supported by RIAA or MPAA."
No, he gets upset whenever those groups (RIAA/MPAA) go out of their way to actively NOT pay artists, through various methods created to do exactly that.
"You constantly denigrate any of older companies, even when they adapt."
He's got an article on why he hopes they succeed. Yet, they are actively going out of their way to do anything but.
The reason he is critical of said companies is because they are NOT adapting. You can't show a single example of them willingly adapting on their own. Any examples you can show will be adaptations brought about (some would even say forced upon them) by others.
And for every single new way of adapting they are forced into accepting, they attempt to prevent it from succeeding with their greed. Licensing companies to death, withholding content, etc are NOT ways to succeed, nor are they smart moves to try and use against the people who are opening up new markets and revenue streams for you.
"But if the artist eschews the RIAA/MPAA and embraces the crumbs given by Big Search, you're on their side."
Citation?
I've yet to see an article about Google giving money to independent artists. I've seen plenty of articles though about artists eschewing the traditional gatekeepers and going it alone, and more often than not actually succeeding and doing reasonably well on their own. (You know, those articles that you say are about artists using paywalls. Even though they aren't. Louis C.K. being the one you love to refer to, among others.)
"If a big company puts up a paywall that blocks Big Search, you're against the artists in that company using that paywall to make money."
I've never seen proof of this, in an article or anything. At least not in the manner you're saying.
You are either incredibly stupid or a complete nut. Requiring payment DOES NOT equal a paywall! How many times do we have to explain this to you before it f*cking sinks in?
There's nothing wrong with a company refusing to let Google (JUST SAY THE F*CKING NAME ALREADY) index them and allow users to search for them. But if that's the case, they can't complain that they're being left out.
However, what we have are some companies demanding that Google pay them money for appearing in Google searches. We've got an article about French Media regarding this stupidity. Read it. But do try and understand it.
"But if they come over to Big Search and cut Big Search into the ad sales profits, you're okay with it."
You know what, at this point I realize you're not a loon, you're just an idiot.
Not once had Mike said anything even remotely like this, so where you got it from is anyone's guess.
Google gets money from ads, yes. This is a fact. Anyone can use AdSense provided by Google though. ANYONE. And they can get a cut. There is no okay or not okay with this, this is traditionally something that businesses do. They advertise or they allow advertisements to run so they can make money.
"It would be more accurate to say that you're all for artists making money if Big Search gets the droit de seigneur."
It would be NOT even remotely accurate to say that.
However, it would be VERY accurate to say you're an idiot and you seriously need help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why bang your head against a wall?
They got closer recently than they ever dared dream 25 years ago. Like Icarus, they're going to keep flapping.
Imagine if "loss of profit makes you a victim of theft" was applied against boycotters ... protesters ... competitors.
Their continually repeating the same old barbs are not a reflection on or judgement against TechDirt. If I were offered as much power as they were offered for saying that stuff, I'd repeat it like a robot too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why bang your head against a wall?
Oh, please don't say that! I respect your opinions, and want to maintain that respect.
Personally, there is no amount of money or power (but I repeat myself) that would get me to sell out my fellow citizens like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"get upset when musicians and filmmakers try to earn a living."
Few words missing there. I'll fix it.
"don't want major labels who sign on artists to get paid 90-100% of the profits."
"get upset when people who exploit musicians and filmmakers try to earn a living at their expense."
There you go, good as new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who the fuck are you to infer that they shouldn't have the right to make that choice for themselves?
I bet you steal from indies anyway, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Until the last ten years, you HAD to sign with a label in order to get your music on the air. Still do, it's just with the internet, you can still reach a lot of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pirates ONLY download Top 20 content, douchebag, therefore disproving the fact that piracy helps you connect with other unknown artists. Remember, if you listen to non-Top 20 stuff, you're a complete NOBODY.
Just ask the troll that said the above in the other thread!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Slight Hijack of the Comments
If you think the comment is stupid, say why. But don't report it. Keep the discussion going. The only way to sharpen the arguments is to actually have to make and explain them. Agree to disagree, please. Free speech and all that. Thank you!
Now, back to our regularly scheduled commenting. . .
Bryan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]