Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Let me point you to this.
Occupy Wall Street 2.0: A chat with the editor of Adbusters | Grist: "The neoclassical paradigm taught in Economics 101 classes has had its day. Back in 2008, when the financial meltdown happened and caught all the classical economists by surprise, there were a lot of bioeconomists and ecological economists waiting in the wings, hungry to shift that paradigm. And there will be a revolt of students against their professors. And we may find ourselves next year with hundreds of students occupying the economics departments of their universities. It wouldn’t just be a policy shift like taxing the rich. It would be a shift in the fundamental axioms of economic science and a tinkering with the bedrock of our economic system. The next generation of economists would have a totally different worldview."
The economic model espoused by Mike is actually very traditional. Musicians are encouraged use recorded music as a promotional tool and then find something to sell to consumers. It's still very much a consumer-based concept.
But others are looking at entirely new business/economic models that don't involve selling, that reduce consumerism, that change the nature of work itself, and so on.
So there are times I do interject my vision of the "new music business model" and it isn't like the old one, but it isn't like Mike's either. Mike has not cornered the market on the future of music, the arts, or the world economy. There is so much discussion going on outside of Techdirt that I like to remind people of it every so often. The discussion doesn't need to fall into "Mike's version of anti-IP" and "everyone else." There are some impressive economic thinkers who don't, as far as I can tell, post here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Then you have completely missed the point of this blog, haven't you? The entire point is that there are still ways to make money, but they're not one-size-fits-all, and they require effort.
You realize that when I say I think most people will end up working for free, I'm not just talking about musicians and artists. I'm talking about everyone. Between worldwide competition and automation, labor is on the defensive. Yes, there are some very rich people. But the division between the very wealthy and everyone else is increasing.
The fact that Techdirt thinks everything will be fine if musicians just get a bit more creative with their selling is precisely why I look elsewhere for economic discussions. Again, I like The P2P Foundation for in-depth discussions about how world economics are, or should be, changing.
It's pretty simple: If you don't want the legacy business to matter, stop kicking up a fuss and let them die if they are wrong. If they are stupid, they will fail, clearing the way for whole new business models to flourish.
That's how I see it, too. The big content companies are disappearing anyway. I don't bother with the piracy debates, pro or con, because I see it as yesterday's story. What I enjoy, from an outsider's point of view, is to watch Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon beating up on each other now. THEY are the big companies trying to exercise power now; Hollywood is old news. But the new power holders show just as much inclination to take over the world as those they accuse of having done so in the past.
Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
There is no gist, Techdirt functions as a lighthouse.
That is why people come here to see what is happening and to get the other side of the story, the mud playing in the comments is us venting against the other side whomever they are.
I read some of the topics, but not all. And I post on some, but not most.
So, yes, I suppose Techdirt is reaching me. But I also read a variety of other sites to get a variety of viewpoints. Actually Techdirt is rarely the first with a story, but it is interesting to see how it is spun.
People on Techdirt have tried to peg me, but it isn't that easy. I've been stereotyped, which suggests to me that there's a lot of kneejerk thinking here. Whenever I disagree with Mike, people assume I am the enemy, but if anything, I am more to the left than most of you. I think competition will drive down prices/wages to such an extent that most of us will end up working for free. So I have jumped ahead to study what is coming out of the shareable and P2P movements because I see that as our collective economic future. I even see a future where money in the traditional sense will disappear. Money is essentially just virtual goods these days anyway, and cybercriminals have already figured out how to transfer funds from one account to another, so at some point the financial system loses meaning.
What I usually challenge is the idea that getting rid of copyright and IP will somehow transform the world. I don't see that happening unless a number of other institutions also evolve. For example, as I have said elsewhere, patented drugs aren't the reason low cost medicine isn't reaching those in need in Africa. It's because we don't have an adequate system to get basic medicine to those who need it. The "real" revolution has to go much beyond fighting IP laws. Occupy Wall Street is more where I am coming from than Techdirt.
Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
it is boring, but it is also not going to stop, once ideas take hold of something they will try to get spread and that only happens through repetition, maybe what you want is a new idea that nobody thought about it and nobody knows about it, start discussing it and you too will become a parrot for that idea.
True, but once people get the gist of the message here, there isn't really a lot of reason to come back unless they want to cover the same ground over and over again. For those who want to cover a broader spectrum of issues, they are likely to go elsewhere.
Gee, now why would there be a shortage of generic drugs?
Or, more to the point, a shortage of generic drugs to the people who need them. Getting rid of drug patents does not affect getting generic drugs to those too poor to even pay for those. Generic drugs exist now, but their distribution is still dependent on existing economic systems which are often not set up to benefit the needy.
Yes, but it's a more complex law than just dropping patents.
I meant to say it is a "more complex issue."
That's where I wish there was more nuance. Getting rid of IP laws won't fix some of the problems attributed to them. So if we are going to be honest, we need to look at how the world economy functions and what will or won't change once IP laws are eliminated. I like the P2P Foundation because it addresses a far more complex web of inter-relations than just want happens with patent and copyright laws. There are issues with money, debt, scarcity or lack of it, the distribution of wealth, how people work together on commons, how to increase commons, and so on. There's so much to be looked at if we really want to transform how ideas and outcomes are shared and exchanged.
Patent law *definitely* kills. Especially in the medical field.
Yes, but it's a more complex law than just dropping patents. We need to figure out how to deliver low cost health care to everyone. For example, around the world people are dying because of lack of access to even generic drugs, so that fact that they can't afford patented drugs isn't even an issue.
IP laws are just a part of a much bigger picture. There are a lot of problems that won't be fixed just by eliminating IP laws. So let's push the creative thinking out much farther and see what we can do to challenge all sorts of conventional thinking.
1. Democracy does not guarantee a just and/or moral outcome.
This is the stuff that interests me. For the most part, I distrust big tech companies as much as any big company, old or new. So I see everyone at risk of having the tables turned on them unless they hold the power, which seems to be concentrating into fewer hands worldwide.
I don't see the tech billionaires as heroes any more than I see any billionaire as a hero. I've also seen enough tech companies and the people who start and work for them come and go at a relatively rapid rate, so even though people see someone else having to adjust to economic forces, I think those economic forces will probably catch up to them as well sooner or later. That is why, for example, I look at the talk about Facebook with some skepticism. It's the big company of the moment, but it is only a moment. Just as Facebook was able to come along and upset older companies (even Google), something will displace Facebook, too.
Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Dare I point out that you are guilty of what you are complaining about? If there is some other angle, I would love to hear it.
If that is the case, and maybe it is, then this further confirms the point. We're all guilty of going round and round on the same topics here. Maybe it is time to discuss something else. I do post to a number of other sites, so I don't cover the same topics everywhere. Just here.
There are more, but those are some to check out. As I think of more, I will add them. I follow them all except the CD Baby blog, but I get pointed to that periodically depending on the topic.
The best artist blog is amanda palmer. She has insightful things to say about being an artist and her fans are smart and insightful as well.
There are better places to discuss music and the arts
I started to read the comments for this, and saw the same old arguments and gave up.
Generally the comments here cover the same ground over and over again and you already know what you'll read before you come here.
So most people in music and the arts find more relevant conversation elsewhere.
And even on the issues of IP concerns or the P2P culture, there are more stimulating discussions elsewhere because here mostly you have anonymous people taking shots at each other with relatively little new material introduced. There's a community here, and I'm sure to serves the purposes of the community members, but for a lot of other people, once you've read an article or two and read the comments, you know what they will all say, pro or con. Same old, same old, endlessly.
That's what I'm thinking. Stress kills. Or losing money kills.
He was upset about the copyright case. People get upset about lots of things, and some of them likely die as a result. Perhaps we need to tackle the bigger picture of stress and death. I'll bet, though, that if we ran an on-going list of people dying around the world everyday from stress-related issues, it wouldn't hold a lot of interest here.
However, in this case, "Guy loses copyright case. Guy is upset. Guy dies. Copyright to blame?"
Clearly many factors led to his death. The important point is that copyright lawsuits have a profound negative effect, both personal and financial, on all those involved, and that a system that encourages this, over the question of just a couple notes, is not fighting for good.
On a scale of world problems causing death, copyright is probably relatively low. I'd love to expand this discussion to world issues that cause premature death and how we can address them.
Medical bills and all the other financial problems around the world that lead to depression/despondency
I just read this and thought of the people forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills. There are many issues that lead to financial ruin in the world and most of them affect more people than copyright lawsuits. So I'll put in a word for the need for a better way to handle medical costs in the US.
And actually, the quote is interesting in that Ham was referring to gaining income from the song and what he would lose in the future. So he, too, was part of the song copyright system.
Death of Men at Work's Greg Ham investigated by police | Music | guardian.co.uk: Ham has always denied stealing the flute melody and said last year the court ruling might mean his financial ruin. "I'll never see another cent out of that song again," he told theAge.com. "We'll face massive legal costs. At the end of the day, I'll end up selling my house."
I've noticed that when there is press about a death and it appears to reinforce our beliefs, we say the two are related and use that to show the damage caused by whatever we don't like.
Whenever there is a death and there is a suggestion to link it to something we believe in, we discount a causal connection.
In other words, we use public deaths as a way to support our already established beliefs, and treat them as unrelated incidents when they appear to undermine our already established beliefs.
I'm still on the side of applauding Twitter for trying to do something, and if nothing else, advancing the conversation. But here's someone who isn't buying it.
I would also recommend that you routinely follow Fred Wilson's blog and the comments on whatever the topic. I'll hold it up as the best example I know of an excellent exchange between writer and readers.
Yes, the brilliance of this approach is that it takes existing basic concepts of patent law and points them in a different direction — one that serves the public good. A single company doing this once won't have an impact, but if it catches on as an industry-wide practice in the way that open source and Creative Commons licenses have, for example, it could have a major cumulative impact over time.
I agree. Perhaps there are loopholes which will cause it to fail, but at least it is a start. Trying to change the laws in DC will take forever, so companies that want to affect the patent system need to be doing something on their own.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Occupy Wall Street 2.0: A chat with the editor of Adbusters | Grist: "The neoclassical paradigm taught in Economics 101 classes has had its day. Back in 2008, when the financial meltdown happened and caught all the classical economists by surprise, there were a lot of bioeconomists and ecological economists waiting in the wings, hungry to shift that paradigm. And there will be a revolt of students against their professors. And we may find ourselves next year with hundreds of students occupying the economics departments of their universities. It wouldn’t just be a policy shift like taxing the rich. It would be a shift in the fundamental axioms of economic science and a tinkering with the bedrock of our economic system. The next generation of economists would have a totally different worldview."
The economic model espoused by Mike is actually very traditional. Musicians are encouraged use recorded music as a promotional tool and then find something to sell to consumers. It's still very much a consumer-based concept.
But others are looking at entirely new business/economic models that don't involve selling, that reduce consumerism, that change the nature of work itself, and so on.
So there are times I do interject my vision of the "new music business model" and it isn't like the old one, but it isn't like Mike's either. Mike has not cornered the market on the future of music, the arts, or the world economy. There is so much discussion going on outside of Techdirt that I like to remind people of it every so often. The discussion doesn't need to fall into "Mike's version of anti-IP" and "everyone else." There are some impressive economic thinkers who don't, as far as I can tell, post here.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
You realize that when I say I think most people will end up working for free, I'm not just talking about musicians and artists. I'm talking about everyone. Between worldwide competition and automation, labor is on the defensive. Yes, there are some very rich people. But the division between the very wealthy and everyone else is increasing.
The fact that Techdirt thinks everything will be fine if musicians just get a bit more creative with their selling is precisely why I look elsewhere for economic discussions. Again, I like The P2P Foundation for in-depth discussions about how world economics are, or should be, changing.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's how I see it, too. The big content companies are disappearing anyway. I don't bother with the piracy debates, pro or con, because I see it as yesterday's story. What I enjoy, from an outsider's point of view, is to watch Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon beating up on each other now. THEY are the big companies trying to exercise power now; Hollywood is old news. But the new power holders show just as much inclination to take over the world as those they accuse of having done so in the past.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
That is why people come here to see what is happening and to get the other side of the story, the mud playing in the comments is us venting against the other side whomever they are.
I read some of the topics, but not all. And I post on some, but not most.
So, yes, I suppose Techdirt is reaching me. But I also read a variety of other sites to get a variety of viewpoints. Actually Techdirt is rarely the first with a story, but it is interesting to see how it is spun.
People on Techdirt have tried to peg me, but it isn't that easy. I've been stereotyped, which suggests to me that there's a lot of kneejerk thinking here. Whenever I disagree with Mike, people assume I am the enemy, but if anything, I am more to the left than most of you. I think competition will drive down prices/wages to such an extent that most of us will end up working for free. So I have jumped ahead to study what is coming out of the shareable and P2P movements because I see that as our collective economic future. I even see a future where money in the traditional sense will disappear. Money is essentially just virtual goods these days anyway, and cybercriminals have already figured out how to transfer funds from one account to another, so at some point the financial system loses meaning.
What I usually challenge is the idea that getting rid of copyright and IP will somehow transform the world. I don't see that happening unless a number of other institutions also evolve. For example, as I have said elsewhere, patented drugs aren't the reason low cost medicine isn't reaching those in need in Africa. It's because we don't have an adequate system to get basic medicine to those who need it. The "real" revolution has to go much beyond fighting IP laws. Occupy Wall Street is more where I am coming from than Techdirt.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
True, but once people get the gist of the message here, there isn't really a lot of reason to come back unless they want to cover the same ground over and over again. For those who want to cover a broader spectrum of issues, they are likely to go elsewhere.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or, more to the point, a shortage of generic drugs to the people who need them. Getting rid of drug patents does not affect getting generic drugs to those too poor to even pay for those. Generic drugs exist now, but their distribution is still dependent on existing economic systems which are often not set up to benefit the needy.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I meant to say it is a "more complex issue."
That's where I wish there was more nuance. Getting rid of IP laws won't fix some of the problems attributed to them. So if we are going to be honest, we need to look at how the world economy functions and what will or won't change once IP laws are eliminated. I like the P2P Foundation because it addresses a far more complex web of inter-relations than just want happens with patent and copyright laws. There are issues with money, debt, scarcity or lack of it, the distribution of wealth, how people work together on commons, how to increase commons, and so on. There's so much to be looked at if we really want to transform how ideas and outcomes are shared and exchanged.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but it's a more complex law than just dropping patents. We need to figure out how to deliver low cost health care to everyone. For example, around the world people are dying because of lack of access to even generic drugs, so that fact that they can't afford patented drugs isn't even an issue.
IP laws are just a part of a much bigger picture. There are a lot of problems that won't be fixed just by eliminating IP laws. So let's push the creative thinking out much farther and see what we can do to challenge all sorts of conventional thinking.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re:
This is the stuff that interests me. For the most part, I distrust big tech companies as much as any big company, old or new. So I see everyone at risk of having the tables turned on them unless they hold the power, which seems to be concentrating into fewer hands worldwide.
I don't see the tech billionaires as heroes any more than I see any billionaire as a hero. I've also seen enough tech companies and the people who start and work for them come and go at a relatively rapid rate, so even though people see someone else having to adjust to economic forces, I think those economic forces will probably catch up to them as well sooner or later. That is why, for example, I look at the talk about Facebook with some skepticism. It's the big company of the moment, but it is only a moment. Just as Facebook was able to come along and upset older companies (even Google), something will displace Facebook, too.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
If that is the case, and maybe it is, then this further confirms the point. We're all guilty of going round and round on the same topics here. Maybe it is time to discuss something else. I do post to a number of other sites, so I don't cover the same topics everywhere. Just here.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
In terms of P2P culture changing the world, go here: P2P Foundation
Music and arts sites with interesting perspectives:
MTT - Music Think Tank
hypebot
Createquity.
Hyperallergic — Sensitive to Art and its Discontents
Music Promotion for Independent Musicians | DIY Musician Blog
There are more, but those are some to check out. As I think of more, I will add them. I follow them all except the CD Baby blog, but I get pointed to that periodically depending on the topic.
The best artist blog is amanda palmer. She has insightful things to say about being an artist and her fans are smart and insightful as well.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Generally the comments here cover the same ground over and over again and you already know what you'll read before you come here.
So most people in music and the arts find more relevant conversation elsewhere.
And even on the issues of IP concerns or the P2P culture, there are more stimulating discussions elsewhere because here mostly you have anonymous people taking shots at each other with relatively little new material introduced. There's a community here, and I'm sure to serves the purposes of the community members, but for a lot of other people, once you've read an article or two and read the comments, you know what they will all say, pro or con. Same old, same old, endlessly.
On the post: Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed
Re: Twister Sister
That's what I'm thinking. Stress kills. Or losing money kills.
He was upset about the copyright case. People get upset about lots of things, and some of them likely die as a result. Perhaps we need to tackle the bigger picture of stress and death. I'll bet, though, that if we ran an on-going list of people dying around the world everyday from stress-related issues, it wouldn't hold a lot of interest here.
However, in this case, "Guy loses copyright case. Guy is upset. Guy dies. Copyright to blame?"
On the post: Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed
Re: Cause and blame
On a scale of world problems causing death, copyright is probably relatively low. I'd love to expand this discussion to world issues that cause premature death and how we can address them.
On the post: Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed
Medical bills and all the other financial problems around the world that lead to depression/despondency
And actually, the quote is interesting in that Ham was referring to gaining income from the song and what he would lose in the future. So he, too, was part of the song copyright system.
Death of Men at Work's Greg Ham investigated by police | Music | guardian.co.uk: Ham has always denied stealing the flute melody and said last year the court ruling might mean his financial ruin. "I'll never see another cent out of that song again," he told theAge.com. "We'll face massive legal costs. At the end of the day, I'll end up selling my house."
On the post: Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Change the system, change the people.
Actually I'm advocating that we change the entire world economic system. Don't just focus on IP laws. Let's push for a total remake.
Here's a good place for ideas. I have nothing to do with the organization, but they have collected lots of good resources here.
The Foundation for P2P Alternatives - P2P Foundation
On the post: Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed
We at least need some consistency
Whenever there is a death and there is a suggestion to link it to something we believe in, we discount a causal connection.
In other words, we use public deaths as a way to support our already established beliefs, and treat them as unrelated incidents when they appear to undermine our already established beliefs.
On the post: Twitter's Revolutionary Agreement Lets Original Inventors Stop Patent Trolls
One rebuttal
Everybody's Gushing Over Twitter's Bogus Anti-Patent Pledge - Business Insider
On the post: Twitter's Revolutionary Agreement Lets Original Inventors Stop Patent Trolls
Go here for some great discussion
I would also recommend that you routinely follow Fred Wilson's blog and the comments on whatever the topic. I'll hold it up as the best example I know of an excellent exchange between writer and readers.
On the post: Twitter's Revolutionary Agreement Lets Original Inventors Stop Patent Trolls
Re: Re: Re: What about existing patent law?
I agree. Perhaps there are loopholes which will cause it to fail, but at least it is a start. Trying to change the laws in DC will take forever, so companies that want to affect the patent system need to be doing something on their own.
Next >>