Art can be valuable if it gets us to think about the world at large.
Lately I have been posting a lot on Techdirt about the bigger world economy and how we are heading into a time when the old economic concepts may not serve us well.
And I keep posting this link for people who don't know there is discussion that extends beyond IP laws. It has to do with how we view money, organization, property and commons, resources, etc. I have nothing to do with this site, but it's a good resource to get people thinking about a really big picture. We have new technological tools now that may enable us to create an economic system unlike what has been available in the past. At the same time, we are running into limits of some available resources, so we need need to rethink an economic system only perceived to be working when everything continues to grow.
Sell your great songs to people who are more capable of turning them into hits. You can make a nice living that way.
You don't need to "sell" the song to collect on it. If you are the songwriter and someone else records it, you are entitled to royalties. That system is already set up.
And if someone wants to use it in a TV show, movie, or commercial, they negotiate a price with you. They can sing the song, but as the songwriter, you get money, too.
So there are already multiple systems in place to retain the rights to your song and make money from it. That's how songwriters have been making money for decades.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
I suspect the desire for fame may actually be a stronger artistic drive then the basic needs of survival.
I think we will always have people making music and art. I'm envisioning a world where there will be no need to make a living at art because there won't be bills to pay as such. It's the abundance or money-less model that some people are conceptualizing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
I think we're moving toward a situation where everything that can be copied will be copied and the window of "uniqueness" will be become shorter and shorter. Put it out today and have clones available within hours.
Therefore, to me it makes more sense to talk about the economy in a world of hyper-competition and mass duplication than one of scarcity (other than scarcity of certain resources which are being depleted and can't be duplicated). When creativity, output, and income are not linked, and mass duplication doesn't affect one's livelihood, that's one way to deal with the problem. If every professional skill can be shared with every person, then who does the creating has no economic relevance.
Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
The whole "connect with fans" idea depends crucially on ensuring that for the creative works that you put out there, there are always pointers back to you.
Let's explore that a bit. What if everything you do is always copied exactly? No matter what you do, your imitator copies everything, mimics everything you do. Everything. Now, what is usually suggested to musicians is that they put on a live act. But let's say we get to a point where your live act can be duplicated to such an extent, there is no difference between you and your unauthorized clone. Let's move into the not too distant future where appearance, mannerisms, content, can be duplicated so that it is impossible to tell the difference between originator and mimic.
Sounds like you are above that. But egos affect a lot of other people. An example: "Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything ... He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas."
Today I had to get up and go to work to earn my money. I worked back in 2003 also, but nobody is paying me for that work today. Why should they pay you?
Here's perhaps a better work example.
You have an idea and tell it to a co-worker who then tells your boss it's his idea and he gets promoted because of it and you don't. Unfortunately that sort of thing happens enough that office politics are perceived as a generally nasty business.
I'll have to disagree. From the looks, most Republicans seem dedicated to the idea of destroying government and all types of social support set up by the FDR courts of the 50s and 60s.
They say that, but they will funnel government money to private corporations to run prisons, patrol borders, military supplies/operations, etc. Government budgets have actually gone up during Republican administrations.
I live in Boulder CO and vote for every tax increase on the ballot. The money goes to make this a great community to live. It funds schools, bike paths, open space, etc.
People who are against taxes usually still want the government services those taxes support. While the parties may disagree on which services to pay for, they both still want government services of some sort.
Re: Big tech companies have a lot in common with big companies in any inudstry
While some tech stories have been spun over the years as being about grassroots empowerment, I think our economic system encourages, in the end, power and money plays. Tech doesn't seem any more immune to this than any other industry. (If anything, young multi-billionaire tech entrepreneurs are glorified: it really IS about the money.)
So now the big tech companies are the status quo, and perhaps something new will come along and upset them and begin the process anew. Right now I like the shareable/sustainability/localization movements as counterbalances to the establishment.
Also, I will add to what Richard is saying. Those of you who think nothing will replace capitalism in its current form are falling into the same trap as those industries that can't see themselves replaced.
As machines replace workers at an accelerating pace, we will likely have less need for workers other than for jobs that no one currently wants to pay much for (e.g., childcare, care of the elderly). So unless we elevate the pay for those jobs (and then find ways to put money into the pockets of everyone else so they can pay workers to do those jobs), we end up with an economy that is technology-focused. The possible scenarios: Everyone gets to work less and still maintain their standard of living. Or we end up with an even more unequal system where there are some very wealthy people and everyone else scrapes by.
The goal of the system right now is to replace workers with machines whenever possible because the machines can work 24 hours a day, don't need medical care, the ROI tends to be higher, etc.
What jobs do you envision in the future that will be better done by people? Yes, there still are some now, but think about a future where machines replace people and then figure out an appropriate economy. That's what Richard and I are talking about.
The entire world economy is influx and what we have grown accustom to the past may well change dramatically in the future.
"In the coming decades, the efficient and effective use of energy is going to be a real determinant between winners and loser across the global landscape. Affordable, sustainable energy will increasingly determine the prosperity of world powers -- and America is at a growing relative disadvantage until it starts talking honestly with itself about the un-sustainability of its current energy policies and prioritizing its resources (both monetary and human) accordingly."
Look at where renewables are on this chart and look at the political money coming in from wealthy individuals who want to prolong our dependence on fossil fuels as long as possible. And who have demonized even things like bike riding.
Unfortunately the longer we wait to phase out fossil fuels, the more damage we're doing to the environment. I think there are much bigger issues concerning the world than fights over the music and newspaper industries. They are an interesting sideshow, but not as environmentally damaging as what is happening in other industries.
The problem we face is our inability to find a means of fair distribution of available wealth by any means other than payment for labour. If we could fix that problem we wouldn't need jobs!
I totally agree. In fact, that's where my focus is these days. The entire economic system is or should be evolving.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: A bigger revolution
Shareable: Blueprint for P2P Society: The Partner State & Ethical Economy
And if you want a steady stream of articles on the subject, follow him on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/mbauwens
There's a lot more to the discussion than just IP laws, so check out what people are exploring on other sites.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
A bigger revolution
Lately I have been posting a lot on Techdirt about the bigger world economy and how we are heading into a time when the old economic concepts may not serve us well.
And I keep posting this link for people who don't know there is discussion that extends beyond IP laws. It has to do with how we view money, organization, property and commons, resources, etc. I have nothing to do with this site, but it's a good resource to get people thinking about a really big picture. We have new technological tools now that may enable us to create an economic system unlike what has been available in the past. At the same time, we are running into limits of some available resources, so we need need to rethink an economic system only perceived to be working when everything continues to grow.
The Foundation for P2P Alternatives - P2P Foundation
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: The value created was not the song itself
You don't need to "sell" the song to collect on it. If you are the songwriter and someone else records it, you are entitled to royalties. That system is already set up.
And if someone wants to use it in a TV show, movie, or commercial, they negotiate a price with you. They can sing the song, but as the songwriter, you get money, too.
So there are already multiple systems in place to retain the rights to your song and make money from it. That's how songwriters have been making money for decades.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
The Foundation for P2P Alternatives - P2P Foundation
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
I think we will always have people making music and art. I'm envisioning a world where there will be no need to make a living at art because there won't be bills to pay as such. It's the abundance or money-less model that some people are conceptualizing.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
Therefore, to me it makes more sense to talk about the economy in a world of hyper-competition and mass duplication than one of scarcity (other than scarcity of certain resources which are being depleted and can't be duplicated). When creativity, output, and income are not linked, and mass duplication doesn't affect one's livelihood, that's one way to deal with the problem. If every professional skill can be shared with every person, then who does the creating has no economic relevance.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Response to: Calvin on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:50pm
Let's explore that a bit. What if everything you do is always copied exactly? No matter what you do, your imitator copies everything, mimics everything you do. Everything. Now, what is usually suggested to musicians is that they put on a live act. But let's say we get to a point where your live act can be duplicated to such an extent, there is no difference between you and your unauthorized clone. Let's move into the not too distant future where appearance, mannerisms, content, can be duplicated so that it is impossible to tell the difference between originator and mimic.
Anyone have any thoughts?
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re:
Here's perhaps a better work example.
You have an idea and tell it to a co-worker who then tells your boss it's his idea and he gets promoted because of it and you don't. Unfortunately that sort of thing happens enough that office politics are perceived as a generally nasty business.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
They say that, but they will funnel government money to private corporations to run prisons, patrol borders, military supplies/operations, etc. Government budgets have actually gone up during Republican administrations.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
On the post: AOL Sells Its Patents To Microsoft For $1 Billion: Microsoft Now Owns Netscape IP
Re: Big tech companies have a lot in common with big companies in any inudstry
So now the big tech companies are the status quo, and perhaps something new will come along and upset them and begin the process anew. Right now I like the shareable/sustainability/localization movements as counterbalances to the establishment.
On the post: AOL Sells Its Patents To Microsoft For $1 Billion: Microsoft Now Owns Netscape IP
Big tech companies have a lot in common with big companies in any inudstry
Microsoft to Buy AOL Patents for More Than $1 Billion - NYTimes.com: "While Microsoft is struggling in the smartphone market, it is doing a brisk business in licensing its intellectual property to smartphone makers using rival software, analysts say."
On the post: How Disruption Works: Job Loss Isn't Really Job Loss
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite that simple
As machines replace workers at an accelerating pace, we will likely have less need for workers other than for jobs that no one currently wants to pay much for (e.g., childcare, care of the elderly). So unless we elevate the pay for those jobs (and then find ways to put money into the pockets of everyone else so they can pay workers to do those jobs), we end up with an economy that is technology-focused. The possible scenarios: Everyone gets to work less and still maintain their standard of living. Or we end up with an even more unequal system where there are some very wealthy people and everyone else scrapes by.
The goal of the system right now is to replace workers with machines whenever possible because the machines can work 24 hours a day, don't need medical care, the ROI tends to be higher, etc.
What jobs do you envision in the future that will be better done by people? Yes, there still are some now, but think about a future where machines replace people and then figure out an appropriate economy. That's what Richard and I are talking about.
The entire world economy is influx and what we have grown accustom to the past may well change dramatically in the future.
On the post: How Disruption Works: Job Loss Isn't Really Job Loss
Re: Re: Renewables
"In the coming decades, the efficient and effective use of energy is going to be a real determinant between winners and loser across the global landscape. Affordable, sustainable energy will increasingly determine the prosperity of world powers -- and America is at a growing relative disadvantage until it starts talking honestly with itself about the un-sustainability of its current energy policies and prioritizing its resources (both monetary and human) accordingly."
On the post: How Disruption Works: Job Loss Isn't Really Job Loss
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite that simple
If you want to see some ideas, go here.
The Foundation for P2P Alternatives - P2P Foundation
On the post: How Disruption Works: Job Loss Isn't Really Job Loss
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite that simple
Productivity and Employment — A Structural Change? econfuture | Future Economics and Technology
On the post: How Disruption Works: Job Loss Isn't Really Job Loss
Renewables
Unfortunately the longer we wait to phase out fossil fuels, the more damage we're doing to the environment. I think there are much bigger issues concerning the world than fights over the music and newspaper industries. They are an interesting sideshow, but not as environmentally damaging as what is happening in other industries.
On the post: How Disruption Works: Job Loss Isn't Really Job Loss
Re: Re: Re: Not quite that simple
I totally agree. In fact, that's where my focus is these days. The entire economic system is or should be evolving.
Next >>