They do require an amazon account, though, which causes the unfortunate side effect of making it only available to the US, I'm told. (or, specifically, those with a US address)
I'm impressed, bob. This seems like a well thought out and somewhat logical argument. Mind you, "it's been done before" and "people will get paid more because they know how much money was raised" aren't particularly strong arguments, but I'm very impresse
I'm impressed, bob. This seems like a well thought out and somewhat logical argument. Mind you, "it's been done before" and "people will get paid more because they know how much money was raised" aren't particularly strong arguments, but I'm very impressed nonetheless.
People used to make money delivering ice to people's homes. I'm sure you're willing to get rid of your refrigerator so that they can have their jobs back, right?
The great thing about our discussion is that even as I have apparently failed to show you the faults with the path you are walking down, it doesn't change the outcome at all. Technology has made buying copies obsolete. You can decide to adapt, or you can decide not to.
Sure, I could NOT make copies, then I would be like a pictorial artist
I can't tell if you're being obstinate, or if I was unclear. I mean that you don't have to pay someone to make copies of your work and distribute it because, if it's good, people will do that for free. You're trying to make people pay for something they can do for free. That sounds ridiculous, because it is. *YOU* wouldn't pay for something you could do for free, and neither would I. The only reason that anyone will give you money for something they could do for free is because they want to. If that is something you want people to do, you're going to have to switch tactics.
If you don't think musicians should copy their own work for sale, then we'd end up with million dollar original works.
You could always play live. You know, that "work" thing people are always going on about. Do you honestly believe that if you bang out a song, once, you should get to get paid for it over and over? You're anonymous, so there's no reason not to be honest-- is that honestly what you believe you deserve?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
I think I understand now! Looking back, I should have picked up on it sooner, but I've been a little distracted. I don't think Mike, or anyone at TD, thinks that fixing this IP mess will fix the rest of the economy. I could be wrong, of course, but that's not what I pick up when I read here. If you're looking for a solution for solving the economic mess we're in, obviously TD wouldn't be a one-stop-shop for that.
I'm going to respond to your post in reverse order, because I feel like it will help you understand where I'm coming from.
I'm still waiting on you to figure out that like others @ tachdirt, I'm using the 'Anonymous Coward' function because I wish to remain anonymous. If I posted a link to my content I would no longer be anonymous. If you want to delude yourself that I'm a wannabe posting from my Dad's computer.. that's your loss.
No where did I even suggest that I thought you were lying, or that you were a wannabe, or that you were posting from any computer but your own. I asked for a link to your art because I know that some people blame piracy when they fail (or, don't do as well as they think they should) when it is not piracy, but any number of other factors. Most notably, that their art isn't very good. (Please note, I'm not speaking of you specifically!) I wanted to hear your music for myself. I don't buy music, but I do subscribe to Rdio, for which I pay $10/mo. I listen to a great deal of music, and were I to try and "purchase" all the music new music I listen to, I'd quickly run out of money. I find music streaming to be best suited to my needs. I also wanted to see if you would pass up what would amount to free advertising.. here I am, someone looking for new music, asking you to show me where I can find your music, and instead of pouncing on it, you'll pass it up. This confuses me. Oh well, there's plenty of music to listen to without yours.
No. Piracy replaces my product that has a fee, with the identical product that is cost free. I have no middle man, but if I put my song on the web with a $1.99 charge, piracy 'harms' me if everyone pirates it and I don't get a single payment of $1.99
This may be a bit of a shock, but musicians make music. Their business is making music. Their business is *not* making copies of music. Distributors made copies of music and shipped them all over the place in an effort to get people to come see musicians do their thing. Somewhere along the way, everyone got confused about what was the product and what was the method enabling that product.
Let's ignore all of that, for now.
If I buy your music and hate it, will you give me my money back? If I pirate your music and hate it, did you lose a sale? Studies have shown that the people who pirate also spend the most on music, so it stands to reason that more piracy + talent = more money, yes?
Instead of staying anonymous, I suggest you use this forum to connect with potential fans, and give them reasons to buy. I'd probably fall out of my chair if you actually did, so there's always that to motivate you, too. :-)
No, but working hard has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is pretty hard work pushing a boulder up a hill with my bare hands, but just because I do it doesn't mean I should get paid for it
The point is that the only person who can conceivably be "harmed" by piracy are the middlemen that piracy replaces. There's no good reason to keep an obsolete job around. (I am sorry if your job was one that has become obsolete, truly!)
Still waiting on that link. Also still waiting on you to figure out how the reply button works.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
I didn't realize you meant everyone, no. I went to that link, and I can't find where they say everyone will work for free, either. It's a pretty poorly laid out site, so maybe you can hook me up with a direct link?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
I think competition will drive down prices/wages to such an extent that most of us will end up working for free.
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. Unfortunately, it seems that the legacy gatekeepers find these two things undesirable. Not that I blame them: I wish people would just hand me a boatload of money, too, but I'm not ruining anyone's lives to make it happen.
The "real" revolution has to go much beyond fighting IP laws.
When IP laws are being extended to such a point that they are directly opposed to freedom of speech, then the revolution starts there. Without freedom of speech, any other "revolution" is dead in the water.
You are exactly the type of pro-IP commenter we need around here, Stephen! Not one name calling, and a thoughtful argument to boot! It's no wonder; you're Canadian! :-)
For your first point, I'd have to say that between the record labels and TD, TD is far more pro-artist. The labels are pro-artist the same way a leech is pro-host. (Generally speaking, of course!) You don't call someone who sees impending disaster and warns people about it "pro-disaster", do you? To many here at TD, it is obvious that the current model is unsustainable. Unless, of course, you're okay with letting people observe your every online action to ensure you aren't arranging bits on your hard drive in an unapproved manner. As a self proclaimed social activist, you surely aren't in favor of such a disastrous event to support an otherwise unsustainable business model, right?
Which leads to your question about micro payments and digital signatures; they won't work because they can be defeated. I assure you, anything that one side thinks up, the other side can neutralize. If the solution ends in "to make people pay" then it will fail. The only solution is to make people *want* to pay. When you frame it that way, it's easy to see the solution is the carrot, not the stick.
The simple fact is that technology often disrupts markets. Sometimes it causes people to lose jobs; sometimes it causes people to have to change the way they make money. It's not a bad thing, it's progress. It seems unfair to those directly affected, but it's inevitable. If we invented cheap teleportation, imagine the industries that would fail. Would you be in favor of forcing people to use outdated methods of travel to make sure people didn't lose their jobs, even though technology had made those jobs obsolete? I wouldn't.
There is nothing unjust about sharing music. It's always been done, it's how culture is shared. The only difference between then and now is that the sharing is perfect; indistinguishable from the originals. That doesn't suddenly make it unjust, it just means that it's harder to convince people to pay for a copy of your music. There is nothing unjust about not wanting to pay for something you can create yourself, and I can create copies of music all day long. I can't play the G chord, though, so you should tune your business model around my inability to make music, and not my former inability to make copies.
Your last paragraph is leading with the same error, you can no longer "protect" from digital copying. It's not possible without giving up all of our liberties. Enough of the stick.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: What does she need $100,000 for?
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re:
On the post: Jimmy Wales Says Irrelevance, Not Piracy, Will Doom Hollywood
Oops!
Oh well. It's still a neat browser, just maybe not for TD. :-)
On the post: Jimmy Wales Says Irrelevance, Not Piracy, Will Doom Hollywood
I'm impressed, bob. This seems like a well thought out and somewhat logical argument. Mind you, "it's been done before" and "people will get paid more because they know how much money was raised" aren't particularly strong arguments, but I'm very impresse
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, or his music isn't selling because it's crap, and piracy is his scapegoat.
Either way, it's sad.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re:
The great thing about our discussion is that even as I have apparently failed to show you the faults with the path you are walking down, it doesn't change the outcome at all. Technology has made buying copies obsolete. You can decide to adapt, or you can decide not to.
I truly wish you the best of luck with it.
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:
Why?
Sure, I could NOT make copies, then I would be like a pictorial artist
I can't tell if you're being obstinate, or if I was unclear. I mean that you don't have to pay someone to make copies of your work and distribute it because, if it's good, people will do that for free. You're trying to make people pay for something they can do for free. That sounds ridiculous, because it is. *YOU* wouldn't pay for something you could do for free, and neither would I. The only reason that anyone will give you money for something they could do for free is because they want to. If that is something you want people to do, you're going to have to switch tactics.
If you don't think musicians should copy their own work for sale, then we'd end up with million dollar original works.
You could always play live. You know, that "work" thing people are always going on about. Do you honestly believe that if you bang out a song, once, you should get to get paid for it over and over? You're anonymous, so there's no reason not to be honest-- is that honestly what you believe you deserve?
It was never only to attract people to a show.
Radio disagrees with you.
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
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: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
As a side note, I agree mostly with what you're saying about the widening gap between the top 1% and everyone else. I especially like the chart that shows how many hours of minimum wage it takes in each state to rent an apartment at fair market price. It's ridiculous. (Please note, that was simply the first result from google, I didn't read any of the words on that site, nor have I ever been there before)
However, the larger economic world is not really relevant to many, if any, TD posts, which is probably why you don't see it addressed 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:
I'm still waiting on you to figure out that like others @ tachdirt, I'm using the 'Anonymous Coward' function because I wish to remain anonymous. If I posted a link to my content I would no longer be anonymous. If you want to delude yourself that I'm a wannabe posting from my Dad's computer.. that's your loss.
No where did I even suggest that I thought you were lying, or that you were a wannabe, or that you were posting from any computer but your own. I asked for a link to your art because I know that some people blame piracy when they fail (or, don't do as well as they think they should) when it is not piracy, but any number of other factors. Most notably, that their art isn't very good. (Please note, I'm not speaking of you specifically!) I wanted to hear your music for myself. I don't buy music, but I do subscribe to Rdio, for which I pay $10/mo. I listen to a great deal of music, and were I to try and "purchase" all the music new music I listen to, I'd quickly run out of money. I find music streaming to be best suited to my needs. I also wanted to see if you would pass up what would amount to free advertising.. here I am, someone looking for new music, asking you to show me where I can find your music, and instead of pouncing on it, you'll pass it up. This confuses me. Oh well, there's plenty of music to listen to without yours.
No. Piracy replaces my product that has a fee, with the identical product that is cost free. I have no middle man, but if I put my song on the web with a $1.99 charge, piracy 'harms' me if everyone pirates it and I don't get a single payment of $1.99
This may be a bit of a shock, but musicians make music. Their business is making music. Their business is *not* making copies of music. Distributors made copies of music and shipped them all over the place in an effort to get people to come see musicians do their thing. Somewhere along the way, everyone got confused about what was the product and what was the method enabling that product.
Let's ignore all of that, for now.
If I buy your music and hate it, will you give me my money back? If I pirate your music and hate it, did you lose a sale? Studies have shown that the people who pirate also spend the most on music, so it stands to reason that more piracy + talent = more money, yes?
Instead of staying anonymous, I suggest you use this forum to connect with potential fans, and give them reasons to buy. I'd probably fall out of my chair if you actually did, so there's always that to motivate you, too. :-)
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re:
The point is that the only person who can conceivably be "harmed" by piracy are the middlemen that piracy replaces. There's no good reason to keep an obsolete job around. (I am sorry if your job was one that has become obsolete, truly!)
Still waiting on that link. Also still waiting on you to figure out how the reply button works.
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: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
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
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
Then, kindly link to your content.
Thanks.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Mike, step 1
Are you a musician? Can we get a link to your music, please?
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: 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. Unfortunately, it seems that the legacy gatekeepers find these two things undesirable. Not that I blame them: I wish people would just hand me a boatload of money, too, but I'm not ruining anyone's lives to make it happen.
The "real" revolution has to go much beyond fighting IP laws.
When IP laws are being extended to such a point that they are directly opposed to freedom of speech, then the revolution starts there. Without freedom of speech, any other "revolution" is dead in the water.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Artists v copyright
For your first point, I'd have to say that between the record labels and TD, TD is far more pro-artist. The labels are pro-artist the same way a leech is pro-host. (Generally speaking, of course!) You don't call someone who sees impending disaster and warns people about it "pro-disaster", do you? To many here at TD, it is obvious that the current model is unsustainable. Unless, of course, you're okay with letting people observe your every online action to ensure you aren't arranging bits on your hard drive in an unapproved manner. As a self proclaimed social activist, you surely aren't in favor of such a disastrous event to support an otherwise unsustainable business model, right?
Which leads to your question about micro payments and digital signatures; they won't work because they can be defeated. I assure you, anything that one side thinks up, the other side can neutralize. If the solution ends in "to make people pay" then it will fail. The only solution is to make people *want* to pay. When you frame it that way, it's easy to see the solution is the carrot, not the stick.
The simple fact is that technology often disrupts markets. Sometimes it causes people to lose jobs; sometimes it causes people to have to change the way they make money. It's not a bad thing, it's progress. It seems unfair to those directly affected, but it's inevitable. If we invented cheap teleportation, imagine the industries that would fail. Would you be in favor of forcing people to use outdated methods of travel to make sure people didn't lose their jobs, even though technology had made those jobs obsolete? I wouldn't.
There is nothing unjust about sharing music. It's always been done, it's how culture is shared. The only difference between then and now is that the sharing is perfect; indistinguishable from the originals. That doesn't suddenly make it unjust, it just means that it's harder to convince people to pay for a copy of your music. There is nothing unjust about not wanting to pay for something you can create yourself, and I can create copies of music all day long. I can't play the G chord, though, so you should tune your business model around my inability to make music, and not my former inability to make copies.
Your last paragraph is leading with the same error, you can no longer "protect" from digital copying. It's not possible without giving up all of our liberties. Enough of the stick.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re:
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re:
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
Next >>