Do you ever plan on redecorating your home? That wouldn't follow the original architect's design.
You could do a great job or make a horrible mess. Neither would be blamed on the architect. And in the case of a story (not something physical), there's nothing to stop the original designer coming along and revising the design to be more pleasing, or to build another addition, or do something else that might stretch this tenuous metaphor further.
How is a tribute, homage or parody *any* different if the original author is alive or dead? Or the author of the derivative work, for that matter? The work stands on its own.
Parody is an excellent example of why derivative works don't harm the original. It is a derivative work that can change the original plot and characters in any number of ways, and have them do any number of things, good or bad. Nobody views that as harming the original author's work, do they? Nobody confuses something on CollegeHumor or FunnyOrDie with the original author's work.
As long as the distinction is made that it isn't the same author (e.g. it isn't Salinger's own Holden Caulfield), why should it matter?
For me, having access to hundreds (thousands?) of show recordings has little to no value. Having access to a recording of a single I was at, however, is worth a lot more.
"There's no way real way to make that download exclusive to the people who were there."
It already is different for the people who were there. It has meaning to them. That meaning gives it worth.
It's not going to change whether hardcore fans go. Their attendance was already guaranteed though. It might pull some people who are uncertain onto the side of attending though. If I wasn't sure if I should pay to see a show or not, knowing I would have something to remember it by might push me towards going.
Flip the order around here, and you might get what I see. Wouldn't you (or most) prefer if people offered free downloads of the live shows you (they) attend? If you would prefer that, then there is some value to you. If it has value, it can change your decisions. (I believe some people would voluntarily pay for such a privilege.)
As an example, say two bands are coming to town, but you only have the cash to see one. If they are otherwise the same (e.g. same price, you like them both as much, etc.), are you more likely to see the one that gives you something to remember what you experienced that night, or the one that plays and is gone? I would put my money with the long-term option.
At the very least, it does no harm to the band and gains them some more goodwill with fans.
It would be valuable to me if I could download audio of the shows I've attended over the years.
I understand your argument is that it wouldn't push people to attend because of that, but I'm not sure that's true for everyone. Some people would like it from an "I was there" standpoint. Others might be more likely to go because they know it wouldn't be a fleeting event that they might forget in a few years. The event now has longevity. If nothing else, it breeds favour with the fans (CwF), which will make them more likely to want to see the band perform. "Because you like the person/band" is a valid reason to buy.
"Without rich people, we wouldn't even HAVE music!"
Pardon? You're either very confused, or you're trolling. Many people create because they want to express something. The blues wouldn't exist if wealth was a prerequisite for music.
You threw "CD" into the discussion here, so your arguments against it aren't furthering anything.
Nobody says the Flaming Lips can't (or aren't) offering those show recordings to everyone. Having fans bootleg will result in poorer quality than if the band records the house mix direct from the board, so that helps them. It also tells the fans they don't have to deal with the hassles of recording themselves. It says, "come, relax, have fun, enjoy the show, and we'll deliver a recording in your inbox the next morning." For a rather paltry cost, it's a big value add.
"... it would suck to see a functional business model destroyed by theives (oh sorry, infringers) who literally are picking the living carcass to death"
There is so much confused, hyperbolic language in that line, I literally laughed out loud. "Picking the living carcass to death" is second only to "congratulations, this is officially the overgeneralization of the year," in most enjoyable comments I've seen here.
(I'm not making an argument here -- attacking grammar is not a valid way to debate a point -- just an observation.)
Think of it like taking pictures when you go on vacation. It isn't the digital copy that is valuable. Offering the recording for free (and/or included in the price of the ticket), is a great way to combine something transient (the performance itself) with something to help you remember and relive that experience.
What exactly do you think "being musicians" involves? Without a wealthy benefactor, it generally means you have to work hard to make money. If sitting in a studio made you rich, I'd be less concerned about how to make the business work.
I'm curious to see if people on here will claim "this only works for in between sized bands." It seems like there's a pretty full gamut of musicians/bands working this way these days. As a musician, I'm always looking for new ideas to inspire me (and/or to steal).
By that flawed logic, the owner of the World Trade Center should get a cut of every book/show/movie/t-shirt/keychain that's been made about it, or had it displayed with the skyline.
If it's in public, anyone can take a photograph to use however they like. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be any paparazzi.
I suspect this isn't their legal department. It's probably marketing cobbling together their pre-written responses, not realizing that they don't make sense together.
On the post: Apple Approves Spotify App... Spotify Should Thank Google
On the post: Amazon Wins Lawsuit Saying It Didn't Infringe On One Click Patent (A Different One)
Re: one click?
Regardless of what these people claim, I can and do make one click purchases a number of times a week.
In many cases, you don't have to even click on the page for the item if you don't want to. The buttons are provided up front.
On the post: Radiohead Leaks Its Own Track To BitTorrent; Apparently Still Happy With 'Free'
Re: Re: listen here
I don't think anything you give away for free can have "commercial intentions".
On the post: What's Wrong With Paying Homage To A Literary Classic By Writing A Sequel?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
You could do a great job or make a horrible mess. Neither would be blamed on the architect. And in the case of a story (not something physical), there's nothing to stop the original designer coming along and revising the design to be more pleasing, or to build another addition, or do something else that might stretch this tenuous metaphor further.
On the post: What's Wrong With Paying Homage To A Literary Classic By Writing A Sequel?
Re: sequels, prequels and parodies
Parody is an excellent example of why derivative works don't harm the original. It is a derivative work that can change the original plot and characters in any number of ways, and have them do any number of things, good or bad. Nobody views that as harming the original author's work, do they? Nobody confuses something on CollegeHumor or FunnyOrDie with the original author's work.
As long as the distinction is made that it isn't the same author (e.g. it isn't Salinger's own Holden Caulfield), why should it matter?
On the post: More Bands Look To Give Reasons To Buy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws for giveaways
On the post: More Bands Look To Give Reasons To Buy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws for giveaways
On the post: More Bands Look To Give Reasons To Buy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws for giveaways
It already is different for the people who were there. It has meaning to them. That meaning gives it worth.
It's not going to change whether hardcore fans go. Their attendance was already guaranteed though. It might pull some people who are uncertain onto the side of attending though. If I wasn't sure if I should pay to see a show or not, knowing I would have something to remember it by might push me towards going.
Flip the order around here, and you might get what I see. Wouldn't you (or most) prefer if people offered free downloads of the live shows you (they) attend? If you would prefer that, then there is some value to you. If it has value, it can change your decisions. (I believe some people would voluntarily pay for such a privilege.)
As an example, say two bands are coming to town, but you only have the cash to see one. If they are otherwise the same (e.g. same price, you like them both as much, etc.), are you more likely to see the one that gives you something to remember what you experienced that night, or the one that plays and is gone? I would put my money with the long-term option.
At the very least, it does no harm to the band and gains them some more goodwill with fans.
On the post: Yes, People Dislike The RIAA Because Of Its Actions, Not Because Everyone Hates Music Business People
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Bands Look To Give Reasons To Buy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws for giveaways
I understand your argument is that it wouldn't push people to attend because of that, but I'm not sure that's true for everyone. Some people would like it from an "I was there" standpoint. Others might be more likely to go because they know it wouldn't be a fleeting event that they might forget in a few years. The event now has longevity. If nothing else, it breeds favour with the fans (CwF), which will make them more likely to want to see the band perform. "Because you like the person/band" is a valid reason to buy.
On the post: Yes, People Dislike The RIAA Because Of Its Actions, Not Because Everyone Hates Music Business People
Re:
Pardon? You're either very confused, or you're trolling. Many people create because they want to express something. The blues wouldn't exist if wealth was a prerequisite for music.
On the post: More Bands Look To Give Reasons To Buy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws for giveaways
Nobody says the Flaming Lips can't (or aren't) offering those show recordings to everyone. Having fans bootleg will result in poorer quality than if the band records the house mix direct from the board, so that helps them. It also tells the fans they don't have to deal with the hassles of recording themselves. It says, "come, relax, have fun, enjoy the show, and we'll deliver a recording in your inbox the next morning." For a rather paltry cost, it's a big value add.
On the post: Yes, People Dislike The RIAA Because Of Its Actions, Not Because Everyone Hates Music Business People
Re:
There is so much confused, hyperbolic language in that line, I literally laughed out loud. "Picking the living carcass to death" is second only to "congratulations, this is officially the overgeneralization of the year," in most enjoyable comments I've seen here.
(I'm not making an argument here -- attacking grammar is not a valid way to debate a point -- just an observation.)
On the post: More Bands Look To Give Reasons To Buy
Re: Re: Laws for giveaways
On the post: More Bands Look To Give Reasons To Buy
Re:
On the post: More Bands Look To Give Reasons To Buy
Range
On the post: Are Legal Briefs Filed With A Court Covered By Copyright?
Re:
I agree fair use isn't an issue because fair use exists no matter what (though the definition of what that covers can be debated).
On the post: Copyright Fight Over Famous Wall Street Bull Statue
Re: Re: It's in public view!
If it's in public, anyone can take a photograph to use however they like. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be any paparazzi.
On the post: How You Feel About Rorschach Tests On Wikipedia Says A Lot About You
On the post: B&N Claims It Must DRM Public Domain Books To Protect The Copyright On Them
Next >>