What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

iPod and Limewire...

  • #41
O boy I just knew that that comment would bite me.

Better argumets, better reserch, better experence. Better grammer. Well, um...

whaa?
jestera.gif


im done defending a industry ii dont like and dont know

Heh you win
 
  • #42
Not trying to win - and you did a good job yourself. ;D I just feel like there's a lot of manipulation and half-truth out there, and it really rubs me the wrong way. There are all these explanations of where the money goes, but in the years since the first Napster lawsuits, I've never heard a single record exec give a reason for why they can't just use the widely available, far more economical means for producing their albums. In the end, it just makes things harder for the little man, and I firmly believe that's wrong.
~Joe
 
  • #43
And i think you might have convinced me too with your well written replies. Wich is a first for me on a internet discussion.
 
  • #44
Well thank you, that's quite flattering.
~Joe
 
  • #45
I leave for one day and three pages pop up!  It's been an excellent discussion so far.

Joe, I get the impression we disagree less than you think.  I agree that intellectual copyright becomes a slippery slope argument and I wasn't (and probably wouldn't) fight to defend the current laws.  I was addressing our actions inside the system from a pragmatic viewpoint.  If you jump on your sled and head to the bottom of the slope you exacerbate a problem affectionately known as 'starving artist syndrome'.  I have known many extremely (and I mean extremely) talented artists; painters, musicians, 3d artists, etc, who spend 50 hours/week working a low paying IT job because while thousands of people enjoy their art none are willing to pay.  It seems to me that you might be implying that we would be better off adding our musicians to this group.

How much might these artists be otherwise contributing to our society culturally.  They are offering something of value, great value.  Pragmatically, we would be making a poor decision to force them to waste 90% of their free time on remedial, rather than creative, endeavors.  Morally, if they are offering us something of value why do we offer them nothing in return for it.  So I do have to disagree with your implication that it would be just as good a solution to dissolve intellectual copyright and force the artists to give their music away for free.  Sure, you could say they can still make money off concerts, CDs, promotional material, etc, but now you are shifting their focus from creativity to marketing.

(If you weren't implying that and I misread you I apologize)



[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Does it really make a difference to the listener whether their album was recorded in New York or Vancouver, BC? I doubt it.
I have to back Joe here.  I have spent a lot of years working in a lot of the industries that are referenced, and a lot of what drives the high pricing for services is little more than marketing.  For instance, I have a friend who does 3D art that he displays in a paid gallery on his website.  He gave a band rights to use one of his images in return for a credit line on the back of the CD.  I know several other artists that would be happy to supply similarly high quality work for as little as $100, if for no better reason than that the image is already created so it's free money, not to mention free promotion.  How does that pricing compare to what record labels are currently paying exclusive graphic arts firms?

This is true across most industries.  I would be happy to offer bands a high quality professional photo shoot for a small fraction of what the 'label approved' photographers might charge.  I may be able to offer the same quality.  I may offer a slightly lesser but still comparable quality.  But in the end how many customers will actually look at those pictures and how much will they really affect sales.  Further, how are they relevant to the music or distribution of the music?

This inefficiency is a result of the interactions between an uninformed and apathetic public and an oligopoly of incompetence.



[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I think that albums should sell on the merit of the music they contain, and not because people feel compelled to listen to anything that the Top 40 tells them to.
Ultimately, my point is that music piracy only hurts when artists stop concentrating on their music and try to make money selling their image. And it doesn't even seem to hurt the artists much - it's the labels themselves that are really threatened by the possibility. Music piracy seems to benefit small bands more than it hurts; the internet basically becomes free advertising for them.
I agree, but at the same time this can introduce a problem that is all too familiar to me: how do you let people know you exist.  The only way most people even know what to pirate is because the record industry has done their job of scouting and marketing.  Just a quick anecdote to explain what I mean...

I have a friend named Jeff who is one of the most amazing 3D artists I have ever encountered.  His images are both beautiful and full of emotion and meaning.  He decided to try to get out of his day job by making his gallery a paid gallery, much like DigitalBlasphemy.com does.  After several years he has given up.  His images, his core product, was better that DB's, and he attempted the very same business plan, so why didn't it work?  While I understand art is subjective I showed Jeff's work to enough people to understand that popular opinion would at least put him on par with DB.

Digital Blasphemy got started many years ago when desktop wallpapers were just becoming common.  Through monopoly of the industry and, later, word of mouth his images became the de-facto standard.  While he is now enjoying 30,000 visitors daily, Jeff's site sees maybe 100.  He and I spent years attempting to work out a way to increase traffic with every standard (and enough hair-brained) schemes you can imagine, but without success.  In this case, having 'labels' in the industry that could pick out the better artist and promote him actually does provide a valuable service: The better artist is able to compete and make a living doing what he is best at, and society gains by having better access to the better product.

Simply eliminating the record labels is not going to immediately make the marketplace completely merit-based.  If anything, it's going to force musicians to spend more time filling a marketing role to compete against each other.  Likely one will hire a professional firm to advertise for them, forcing others to respond in kind.  Now you have the seed for labels to spring right back into existence.  What you really need is an all encompassing system that will allow artists to concentrate on their music while it's quality allows it to sell.  Something setup similar to iTunes, but allowing anyone to submit their own music, set their own pricing, and showing 'featured artists' on their home page or elsewhere on a completely random basis.

Until that exists, the music marketplace will never be merit based.  In fact, that holds true for most industries.
 
  • #46
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Nicholas_Bostaph @ Nov. 30 2006,6:59)]oligopoly
Nice word! You must be a man after my own heart.
Yes, I would say that by and large we agree. You do have me right - I really don't feel like a particular band should hold monetary rights on a specific song. Complete elimination of intellectual property is the extreme edge of my belief, but largely I just think that we should eliminate the factors that have conspired to make albums such a large part of a musician's income. If a band is worth having around, then I'm certain that they can stay afloat playing concerts and selling albums at reasonable prices directly to fans. I know plenty of bands who do. Sure, it might not be as cushy as having a label pull down multi-million dollar sums internationally, but if you're a worthwhile artist you won't have a hard time doing honest work. I'd be willing to bet that an increased emphasis on live gigs and DIY recording would tend to push people's skill up over time, as well.
Having gone to a high school that focused on the arts, I've seen a lot of my own friends go through what your friend Jeff has been through. I know that eliminating the organization doesn't always do away with the institution, but I really think that the music world is at critical mass right now. A friend of mine is working on a digital rights system that would be an extension on the ID3 system used to embed text into audio files; his hope is that one day, artists will be able to freely release their music onto the internet, and if people like it, they can follow a link embedded in the file to the artist's web site where they can make donations online. Nearly everyone I know has used the internet to obtain music of one sort or another, legally or illegally. The world is prepared to stop going to record stores - we have the infrastructure in place, people understand the method of disemenation, and a large majority of those in the existing music market already have the appropriate hardware.
It may just be a pipe dream, and I certainly don't expect it to happen tomorrow, but I think there should be an emphasis on the content of music, and not it's availability. It will be a long, long time until things are the way I would like to see them; it's going to take a shift in people's attitudes, and not just the physical features of the market. People will have to start seeking out music on their own, rather than having a commercial radio station tell them which band is most popular, and I don't necessarily see that happening - not any time soon. But, I think that we need to loosen the leash on copyrights nonetheless, if only to discourage labels from price gouging. And who knows? With a little bit of progressive legislation, we might have a merit-based musical community in a few decades. (Provided the lobbyists don't get in there and screw things up.)
~Joe
 
  • #47
I don't think either of us will sway each other with our positions on intellectual copyright, so I'll let that be, but I did want to comment on two other things:



[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If a band is worth having around, then I'm certain that they can stay afloat playing concerts and selling albums at reasonable prices directly to fans.
My concern here is that there is an enormous amount of risk involved.  I could quit my job and work 24/7 on my art or my music.  Maybe I could succeed.  However, if I didn't make nearly what I am now in my first month...how would I make my mortgage payment.  What happens when I don't succeed and need to go back to work six months down the road.  Where will I get the $15k to pay for my living expenses in the meantime? New small businesses actually have a pretty decent success rate when approached right, but I suspect a huge number of musicians would fail to make a living wage in this way.

In capitalism profit is often directly related to the amount of risk that is required, which I think is how it should be.  Your suggestion could result in a huge percentage of potentially fantastic artists never getting anything good created due to lack of practice, or putting out a small percentage of their potential due to limited playing time.  I would hate to see this.




[b said:
Quote[/b] ]People will have to start seeking out music on their own, rather than having a commercial radio station tell them which band is most popular, and I don't necessarily see that happening - not any time soon.
Well, technology and big corporations can help as well as hurt.  Have you used Yahoo's radio application or something similar?  By telling it what you do like it plays music from bands it knows you like interspersed with music from similar bands.  As you rate those new bands you help it make even better suggestions for the future.  A system like this is a huge step towards what you're hoping for, and a lot of people use it.
smile.gif
 
  • #48
I love Launch
smile.gif


But I know there are a lot of bands it won't play just because it thinks I won't like them, even though in reality there's a good chance I would (no country please
smile.gif
)
 
  • #49
Im not certain, but very few practical examples exist where people make a living off of things that most people consider should be free. I know that some exist, but its hard to make a living off such things. Really its hard to make a living off something if the product is free.
 
Back
Top