Now if only we could connect Pirate Mike to The Pirate Bay, then the AC's who frequently pop on to argue and drive people nuts, could have at total field day.
*Begin Conspiracy*
I suppose we could start the rumor that The Pirate Bay was originally called The Pirate Michael Bay, but then Michael Bay was brought to tears at the thought, so Pirate Mike went into hiding.
He found a place, way up on the 64th floor and that's what brought the name, Floor64.
Why the 64th floor? Because Mike is a geek and all geeks speak binary and 2^6 = 64. That's the connection to Google! It's so obvious. Two people started Google, Google has 6 data centers in their establishment of world control, starting with the entertainment industry.
Now you see, Pirate Mike is making it clearly obvious he's a Google Shill. The connection is mathematically proven. It's all in the equation.
Can you elaborate on " band owns their own songs"?
Can a band release their own greatest hits?
Can a band refuse a label releasing their own greatest hits?
Can a band walk away with the full rights of their music despite the contract saying otherwise? Quit a few people in the music biz have come forward saying what you're saying is the other way around.
Can a band simply switch labels, after all they own the songs?
I am struggling because from what I have read, unless you're super successful you do not own the rights, your label does - but what rights specifically? Publishing? Distribution? Mechanical? It depends on the contract.
Case and point, Matthew Good negotiated to get the full rights (where he says he "owns" it) to material from Underdogs and before. The material afterward is not owned by him, but his label.
So what does "owning" it mean?
I would not generalize and say "no band owns their music" and I would not, as you have done, say that almost everyone owns their music. Because I've read far too much that counters that.
Given there's little transparency in record contracts, I doubt we'll ever be able to go beyond anecdotal evidence.
And I learned about that through other sources, not this blog.
And not knowing LZ has control of their rights (good for them) is not the end of the world.
But you bring up a good point: If you are uninformed about a particular business, you should shut up. So that means RIAA/MPAA/trichordist/etc.. should shut up about the tech business (no, programming in Cobol and teaching at a college about "economics of music" doesn't count as being a tech-head) or advertising on websites or intellectual property (I mean seriously, you're an artist, not a lawyer so shut up already).
Right? Isn't that what you want? So FACT and IFPI and Author's Guilds and whatnot should shut up since they're not in the ISP business or web business, or any tech business, they're in the entertainment business.
You can't have it both ways buddy. And that attitude of "you don't get it" doesn't help. Am I arguing against you, repeating the same arguments like some AC's do with "So how much does The Pirate Bay give to artists?" Nope. I don't.
But when AC's repeatedly rant "Tell him to give it away if it needs to be decoupled" instead of understanding the context... yes, they get responses telling them they are not getting it.
And Jason also gets it, but not in the way you think he does. Some say "digital copies have no value" but that's not what they mean, they mean it didn't cost as much to make it (compared to a CD or DVD when you factor in transportation and a physical store) so the manufacturing value is virtually zero. The cost of making copies is virtually zero. (So why does iTunes charge the same price as a DVD? Not sure there, so I usually buy the DVD, at least I get more for the same price).
Jason argues that to assume the digital copy is WORTH $0 is false and that's true, because people still buy when free is available. He's also right in that it is FLUID, something you have not acknowledged.
Decoupled, in the use of the original post, is not "free" and does not mean "can't sell." So Jason was correct in that explanation as well.
You seem to cherry pick on this subject, which is OK, but you're losing the bigger picture.
Since we're on the topic of LZ and their obsessive control over their music, why is it the ripped off so many other blues artists (sometimes blatantly) without paying them a dime?
Seems even LZ is a bit like Apple "Great minds steal ideas and we like that, except if you do it to us we'll come after you with lawyers and take everything away."
Good point and so nicely pointing out that I did not know Led Zepplin actually owned their publishing rights.
So replace Led Zepplin with some other band who's music was used in a commercial against the band's wishes but not against the label's wishes? Get my point?
The point of touring was, if the band was not touring and not generating any additional revenue beyond the occasional purchase (ex What if Baltimora didn't want Tarzan Boy used in Listerine commercials?), what could the artist do then?
That's the point.
What if the label agreed for the music in the movie but the artist did not? In the case where the label owns the music, what can the artist do?
My point was to not just bash The Pirate Bay at any chance but instead to focus on misuse of the artist's music all together.
If you're going to rant about misuse of artist music or using an artist to sell advertising that the artist would not approve of, why limit it to a) the Pirate Bay and b) insinuations of human trafficking?
Interesting. What's more interesting is the lack of explanation of what the labels have done in the past (and present).
Even more interesting the inference that because an advertisement is for mail-order-bride it must some how be involved in human trafficking.
I just find it interesting the focus is on The Pirate Bay and the advertisers on said site and whether Aimee Mann would approve. No other sites and advertising are mentioned.
At least the post isn't too angry and full of raw emotion like many on that site.
Out of curiousity, what if Led Zepplin didn't like Rock n' Roll being used for a Cadillac commercial because of GM's history? What could LZ do? They are not a touring band anymore, so what influence could they have on their label for agreeing to something like Cadillac?
(Note: The discussion here is not who's ads are likely more worse, GM's problems Vs human trafficking - it's on the principle of "artist does not approve").
No problem, I thought you were just confused, but now it is clear you're intentionally being difficult and failing to understand just because:
a) you're paid to
b) you're bored
c) you're disgruntled and full of a sense of entitlement and can't handle anyone showing you "the way"
d) all of the above
I am pretty sure it's d).
Anyway, no more feeding for you, enjoy having the last word as it falls on deaf ears.
No, the newsflash is that you don't understand what people are saying. Your logic (though sometimes flawed) illustrates that point.
TD commentors have been trying to get you to see that, but you simply choose not to and that's further evident by your ad-hominem attack when you've been proven wrong.
Your logic does not apply to this particular situation.
But I suppose if you're stuck in a logic block, and you seem to be, you don't have any transitions available for you to enter a different state. Or, different analogy, you're in a semaphore dead-lock. Or a singleton dead-lock (maybe you like Java over embedded C).
Either way, you need a system reset (aka go sleep on it and come back and re-read before you comment).
"decouple" and "forget about the money" does not mean give it away for free.
It means stop worrying and focusing on trying to monetize copies, which also does not mean "give it away, don't charge people." It means stop trying to focus your attention on monetizing copies, instead focus on the experience of the fan, the connection with the fan, and give the fans what they'd like.
That's what you can monetize. You monetize ways to give the fans what they want. That's where you'll make more money than selling copies.
That's the point he was trying to make.
Your comment "Just give it away for free" means you didn't understand Randall's point.
They must be desperate if they are remaking this, not to mention the tag line "unaware of the forced that threaten our freedoms." Ha ha, yeah, keep that 9-11 fear that everyone is out to get you bullshit alive, while ignoring the reason WHY some MIGHT WANT to take away your freedom (duh - foreign policy).
And North Korea? The country with barely enough food to keep their army alive, let alone their citizens, is going to somehow develop a more advanced weapon against the US? Oh and who will support them? China? Russia? Yeah, they know how reactionary the US is and they also know how many Ohio class nuclear subs the US has (with 24 Triden II's, each with 5-8 warheads, each warhead is 475kilotons of TNT equivalent) - yeah that's realistic.
It's nothing but explosions and likely TnA. Nothing original.
I can't wait until they remake the National Lampoon Vacation series. Or better, they'll remake Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Or even better how about the Deathwish Series? Who will replace Charles Bronson? Maybe they can CGI Arnold's face like they did for Terminator Salvation (using footage from the original 1984 movie)?
Yeah, that's creative. So don't bitch when people download to determine whether it is worth seeing, or they already know the price is NOT worth it and just download it and watch it at home while doing dishes or cleaning.
This film isn't worth the huge budget for the explosions and CGI and I am sure North Korea will sit there in shock at how pathetic this film is, not to mention demeaning and insulting to their country. Not that Hollywood cares right, as long as the USA wins?
Please, you call this talent and worthy of protection with asinine laws?
Oh yeah? And how much money does the Pirate Bay pay artists again? How much of it's 10's of millions of dollars each month that it earns from ad revenues does it give to the artists?
The labels gave this man some money, not enough, but not enough is greater than zero!
add to that Sky1 with Battlestar Galactica, uploaded months before released in US by UK fans, US fans watched, then the show became the most watched Sci Fi show in the US in history!
So I guess not all shit coming out of the UK there AC
It's called protectionism, just like the US automotive industry. Too bad the Japanese were smarter than the US companies and decided to build them right in Canada and the US and people bought more of them, rather than pay for bullshit tariffs because competition is dangerous.
Man, you really don't know much about US policy do you?
You define commercial failure because it has not "made it" in the US? Perhaps you have not investigated manifest destiny much? Just how respectful has the US been towards other cultures?
They don't "drive" people to Hollywood, Hollywood buys them on the promise of lots of money and "making it" in the US. They promote bullshit lifestyles of Hollywood's rich and famous and tell them "that could be you."
And that's not reality, with the exception of a select few.
It says NOTHING about the country's own culture, only that Hollywood was successful at exploiting someone else's work for greed, by lighting a greed fire inside that person. Then reality comes into play and for most cases, those exploited artists/producers/writers are tossed aside and have to travel back to their homeland TO MAKE MONEY TO LIVE.
That's assuming Hollywood even bothered to give the creators anything or even invite them for the "lottery" that is Hollywood.
I've already seen The Dark Night and The Dark Night Rises, thank you very much.
I've also seen the subtitled versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, My Sassy Girl, The Lakehouse, Dark Water, The Ring (this one they actually brought the guy over because we know Hollywood would have fucked it up), etc..
I guess for Americans like you it needs to be Americanized without subtitles because reading is just too much work?
Wrong analogy, are you restricted against buying fireworks in another state and bringing them to your own? Are they 3x the price in your state compared to other states?
Were those fireworks locked up because they could not negotiate an extortive price or was it for safety reasons?
When you go to another state or town to buy them, does your own state come after you and arrest you? When you drink in another town, does the dry town police come after you and charge you?
"their's is so numbingly dull" or maybe you don't appreciate it, but you mean it's not your cup of tea.
I find it rare when the US releases something in the theatres that's unique and interesting, then I find out it was stolen from one of those "numbingly dull" countries you refer to. Or written by an author from one of those countries.
Yes, you've created lots, just like everyone else, but you've overhyped it. Sorry to break it to you.
And stop coming off like an arrogant ass, it's really doing the decent people in your country a huge disservice.
Steal any Korean or Japanese films lately there USA?
What you said has nothing to do with quality and if you were running a store you'd be losing customers.
What you totally miss is these people are PAYING customers who WANT to buy (ad supported or actually pay for it at a reasonable price), but your country's infinite wisdom prevents people from legally accessing it. So you try to stop them rather than provide an affordable means to do so.
Way to alienate too, you MUST be a douche at Hollywood.
I've got news for you, just because you have more TnA and explosions than anyone else (not just your military attacking countries for corporate control)does NOT mean you get to police the world.
You sir, and the way your laws are written, are a prime example of ignorance and stupidity.
I would NOT generalize all US citizens to be like you, just the ones who work for entertainment industry lobby groups, some corporate execs, and a large number of your Members of Congress.
And let's not forget the UK's influence on US culture!
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Google shill and more
*Begin Conspiracy*
I suppose we could start the rumor that The Pirate Bay was originally called The Pirate Michael Bay, but then Michael Bay was brought to tears at the thought, so Pirate Mike went into hiding.
He found a place, way up on the 64th floor and that's what brought the name, Floor64.
Why the 64th floor? Because Mike is a geek and all geeks speak binary and 2^6 = 64. That's the connection to Google! It's so obvious. Two people started Google, Google has 6 data centers in their establishment of world control, starting with the entertainment industry.
Now you see, Pirate Mike is making it clearly obvious he's a Google Shill. The connection is mathematically proven. It's all in the equation.
/sarc/troll/tin-foil hat melted
Sorry, it's Friday and I'm losing it.
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can a band release their own greatest hits?
Can a band refuse a label releasing their own greatest hits?
Can a band walk away with the full rights of their music despite the contract saying otherwise? Quit a few people in the music biz have come forward saying what you're saying is the other way around.
Can a band simply switch labels, after all they own the songs?
Can a band be refused to release their songs if they own them? (Yes they can - Eric Johnson's Sever Worlds was his debut, but Tones was released because his label would not let him release Seven Worlds http://www.ericjohnson.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35&Itemid=9 )
I am struggling because from what I have read, unless you're super successful you do not own the rights, your label does - but what rights specifically? Publishing? Distribution? Mechanical? It depends on the contract.
Case and point, Matthew Good negotiated to get the full rights (where he says he "owns" it) to material from Underdogs and before. The material afterward is not owned by him, but his label.
So what does "owning" it mean?
I would not generalize and say "no band owns their music" and I would not, as you have done, say that almost everyone owns their music. Because I've read far too much that counters that.
Given there's little transparency in record contracts, I doubt we'll ever be able to go beyond anecdotal evidence.
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I learned about that through other sources, not this blog.
And not knowing LZ has control of their rights (good for them) is not the end of the world.
But you bring up a good point: If you are uninformed about a particular business, you should shut up. So that means RIAA/MPAA/trichordist/etc.. should shut up about the tech business (no, programming in Cobol and teaching at a college about "economics of music" doesn't count as being a tech-head) or advertising on websites or intellectual property (I mean seriously, you're an artist, not a lawyer so shut up already).
Right? Isn't that what you want? So FACT and IFPI and Author's Guilds and whatnot should shut up since they're not in the ISP business or web business, or any tech business, they're in the entertainment business.
You can't have it both ways buddy. And that attitude of "you don't get it" doesn't help. Am I arguing against you, repeating the same arguments like some AC's do with "So how much does The Pirate Bay give to artists?" Nope. I don't.
But when AC's repeatedly rant "Tell him to give it away if it needs to be decoupled" instead of understanding the context... yes, they get responses telling them they are not getting it.
And Jason also gets it, but not in the way you think he does. Some say "digital copies have no value" but that's not what they mean, they mean it didn't cost as much to make it (compared to a CD or DVD when you factor in transportation and a physical store) so the manufacturing value is virtually zero. The cost of making copies is virtually zero. (So why does iTunes charge the same price as a DVD? Not sure there, so I usually buy the DVD, at least I get more for the same price).
Jason argues that to assume the digital copy is WORTH $0 is false and that's true, because people still buy when free is available. He's also right in that it is FLUID, something you have not acknowledged.
Decoupled, in the use of the original post, is not "free" and does not mean "can't sell." So Jason was correct in that explanation as well.
You seem to cherry pick on this subject, which is OK, but you're losing the bigger picture.
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems even LZ is a bit like Apple "Great minds steal ideas and we like that, except if you do it to us we'll come after you with lawyers and take everything away."
But I digress.
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So replace Led Zepplin with some other band who's music was used in a commercial against the band's wishes but not against the label's wishes? Get my point?
The point of touring was, if the band was not touring and not generating any additional revenue beyond the occasional purchase (ex What if Baltimora didn't want Tarzan Boy used in Listerine commercials?), what could the artist do then?
That's the point.
What if the label agreed for the music in the movie but the artist did not? In the case where the label owns the music, what can the artist do?
My point was to not just bash The Pirate Bay at any chance but instead to focus on misuse of the artist's music all together.
If you're going to rant about misuse of artist music or using an artist to sell advertising that the artist would not approve of, why limit it to a) the Pirate Bay and b) insinuations of human trafficking?
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re:
Even more interesting the inference that because an advertisement is for mail-order-bride it must some how be involved in human trafficking.
I just find it interesting the focus is on The Pirate Bay and the advertisers on said site and whether Aimee Mann would approve. No other sites and advertising are mentioned.
At least the post isn't too angry and full of raw emotion like many on that site.
Out of curiousity, what if Led Zepplin didn't like Rock n' Roll being used for a Cadillac commercial because of GM's history? What could LZ do? They are not a touring band anymore, so what influence could they have on their label for agreeing to something like Cadillac?
(Note: The discussion here is not who's ads are likely more worse, GM's problems Vs human trafficking - it's on the principle of "artist does not approve").
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No problem, I thought you were just confused, but now it is clear you're intentionally being difficult and failing to understand just because:
a) you're paid to
b) you're bored
c) you're disgruntled and full of a sense of entitlement and can't handle anyone showing you "the way"
d) all of the above
I am pretty sure it's d).
Anyway, no more feeding for you, enjoy having the last word as it falls on deaf ears.
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TD commentors have been trying to get you to see that, but you simply choose not to and that's further evident by your ad-hominem attack when you've been proven wrong.
Your logic does not apply to this particular situation.
But I suppose if you're stuck in a logic block, and you seem to be, you don't have any transitions available for you to enter a different state. Or, different analogy, you're in a semaphore dead-lock. Or a singleton dead-lock (maybe you like Java over embedded C).
Either way, you need a system reset (aka go sleep on it and come back and re-read before you comment).
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does not mean stop thinking about selling them, it means stop thinking that is YOUR ONLY OPTION and thus requires ALL YOUR ATTENTION!
No gotcha for you.
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
Simple
Maybe Google is saying, "I can bite too" as a means of getting the others to back down.
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re:
It means stop worrying and focusing on trying to monetize copies, which also does not mean "give it away, don't charge people." It means stop trying to focus your attention on monetizing copies, instead focus on the experience of the fan, the connection with the fan, and give the fans what they'd like.
That's what you can monetize. You monetize ways to give the fans what they want. That's where you'll make more money than selling copies.
That's the point he was trying to make.
Your comment "Just give it away for free" means you didn't understand Randall's point.
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
AC claiming only good comes out of the US?
Ever see the original?
They must be desperate if they are remaking this, not to mention the tag line "unaware of the forced that threaten our freedoms." Ha ha, yeah, keep that 9-11 fear that everyone is out to get you bullshit alive, while ignoring the reason WHY some MIGHT WANT to take away your freedom (duh - foreign policy).
And North Korea? The country with barely enough food to keep their army alive, let alone their citizens, is going to somehow develop a more advanced weapon against the US? Oh and who will support them? China? Russia? Yeah, they know how reactionary the US is and they also know how many Ohio class nuclear subs the US has (with 24 Triden II's, each with 5-8 warheads, each warhead is 475kilotons of TNT equivalent) - yeah that's realistic.
It's nothing but explosions and likely TnA. Nothing original.
I can't wait until they remake the National Lampoon Vacation series. Or better, they'll remake Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Or even better how about the Deathwish Series? Who will replace Charles Bronson? Maybe they can CGI Arnold's face like they did for Terminator Salvation (using footage from the original 1984 movie)?
Yeah, that's creative. So don't bitch when people download to determine whether it is worth seeing, or they already know the price is NOT worth it and just download it and watch it at home while doing dishes or cleaning.
This film isn't worth the huge budget for the explosions and CGI and I am sure North Korea will sit there in shock at how pathetic this film is, not to mention demeaning and insulting to their country. Not that Hollywood cares right, as long as the USA wins?
Please, you call this talent and worthy of protection with asinine laws?
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Journey's Producer Sues Sony Over Unpaid Royalties For 21 Classic Songs
Re:
The labels gave this man some money, not enough, but not enough is greater than zero!
/1st attempt to act like a troll - How'd I do?
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
So I guess not all shit coming out of the UK there AC
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Man, you really don't know much about US policy do you?
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
They don't "drive" people to Hollywood, Hollywood buys them on the promise of lots of money and "making it" in the US. They promote bullshit lifestyles of Hollywood's rich and famous and tell them "that could be you."
And that's not reality, with the exception of a select few.
It says NOTHING about the country's own culture, only that Hollywood was successful at exploiting someone else's work for greed, by lighting a greed fire inside that person. Then reality comes into play and for most cases, those exploited artists/producers/writers are tossed aside and have to travel back to their homeland TO MAKE MONEY TO LIVE.
That's assuming Hollywood even bothered to give the creators anything or even invite them for the "lottery" that is Hollywood.
I've already seen The Dark Night and The Dark Night Rises, thank you very much.
I've also seen the subtitled versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, My Sassy Girl, The Lakehouse, Dark Water, The Ring (this one they actually brought the guy over because we know Hollywood would have fucked it up), etc..
I guess for Americans like you it needs to be Americanized without subtitles because reading is just too much work?
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Were those fireworks locked up because they could not negotiate an extortive price or was it for safety reasons?
When you go to another state or town to buy them, does your own state come after you and arrest you? When you drink in another town, does the dry town police come after you and charge you?
No, again, wrong analogy.
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
I find it rare when the US releases something in the theatres that's unique and interesting, then I find out it was stolen from one of those "numbingly dull" countries you refer to. Or written by an author from one of those countries.
Yes, you've created lots, just like everyone else, but you've overhyped it. Sorry to break it to you.
And stop coming off like an arrogant ass, it's really doing the decent people in your country a huge disservice.
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
What you said has nothing to do with quality and if you were running a store you'd be losing customers.
What you totally miss is these people are PAYING customers who WANT to buy (ad supported or actually pay for it at a reasonable price), but your country's infinite wisdom prevents people from legally accessing it. So you try to stop them rather than provide an affordable means to do so.
Way to alienate too, you MUST be a douche at Hollywood.
I've got news for you, just because you have more TnA and explosions than anyone else (not just your military attacking countries for corporate control)does NOT mean you get to police the world.
You sir, and the way your laws are written, are a prime example of ignorance and stupidity.
I would NOT generalize all US citizens to be like you, just the ones who work for entertainment industry lobby groups, some corporate execs, and a large number of your Members of Congress.
And let's not forget the UK's influence on US culture!
Next >>