quote:The basic idea of the Pirate Party is simple - the government should encourage, rather than smother, creativity and freedom.
Copyrights are now stretching into the hundreds of years, and fair use is under constant attack by attorneys who exploit the vagueness of the law. Creativity has come to a standstill in this country for those who wish to work within, and benefit from, the confines of the law. Whereas 50 years ago there was no great uproar at creative "pirating" of works without the permission of the original artist (Mickey Mouse was made as a parody, but Disney prosecutes all similar parodies of their Mickey Mouse symbol), similar legitimate creative derivative works are now smothered by the excessive terms, restrictions and punishments of our copyright system.
But it is not just Copyrights that need reform. Patents are suppressing innovation in the digital age by making it possible to monopolize methods and practices. Hundreds of thousands of patents sit on a shelf somewhere, never to be implemented, their ideas shut out from the rest of the world. That our law not only allows this, but enables this, is a travesty and a crime against innovators everywhere.
Lastly, the routinization of privacy violations in the digital age must be halted. Never before has a Citizen faced so many opportunities to have their identity stolen, data misused, or personal information collected without their knowledge. This is done by not only identity thieves, but also the Government, and corporations. Using today's latest technologies enables these entities to act on a wholesale scale that is unheard of in past times. This alarming trend shows no sign of slowing down.
Those of us in the Pirate Party want to change that. We've chosen to adopt the Pirate name so as to pay homage to the creative artists of the past, or as they would now be known, Pirates, thieves, and copyright infringers. We do not support nor condone any unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.
I'm thinking of joining once they have registration. I think they're trying to go about becoming an official party. If they succeed then I will seriously consider joining. I like the idea of starting from a fresh slate, and I agree with them on their stance on the issues they have a stance on. I'm kinda curious if they'll expand their issue base to cover the other ones or if they'll just stick to those ones. If they just stick to the net/copyright related issues could they actually become a viable party in the US?
What do people think?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The basis of copyright law in the United States descends from Article One, Section Eight of our Constitution. Section Eight allows for exclusive rights to creative works in order to promote "progress of science and the useful arts." The need for exclusive rights at the time was real; the costs of publishing a book or distributing a scientific journal were not insignificant, and a monetary incentive, to encourage publishers to print and distribute those works, was necessary. However, the Framers of the Constitution believed, as we do, that Free and Open distribution is the ideal; copyright law is an unfortunate compromise that was at one time necessary to provide an avenue to recoup costs. As such, the Framers instituted copyrights for "limited times" only; once an opportunity to recoup costs had passed, open distribution could once again be in an open manner.
Over the years, as distribution of works and journals has become ever cheaper and easier, one would think that copyright exclusivity restrictions would be lessened so society could be closer to the ideal of open distribution. Unfortunately, this has not been the case; Congress has lost sight of the true purpose of exclusivity laws - to promote as wide a distribution as possible - and adopted a policy that has had an incalculable negative effect on creative expression, dissemination of knowledge, and the collective commons that is the foundation of a strong, vibrant culture.
The Pirate Party wants to return copyright law to it's original purpose: to promote distribution of works as rapidly and widespread as possible. In the age of the Internet, the costs of distributing works has dropped to almost nothing. Why, then, have copyright restrictions not proportionally lessened? Why are they instead more restrictive than they were in 1790?
pH, I have to say, I disagree with you. Artists can distribute their works for nothing more than what it cost to create them. And what it cost to create them is nothing more than the cost of a computer, instrument and a few pieces of equipment which are becoming cheaper and cheaper. Artists can make good clean recordings and distribute them on the internet for next to nothing. Wanna sell cds? By a bunch of burnable cds and have a paypal order form on your site. Send them out. Hell, you don't even need that. Have them pay to just dl the music. Easy as cake. And if they think you're good, your music they will buy. No you won't make the boatloads of money that current popular recording artists make, but really, the current recording industry makes far more money than it should.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: "Whee, let's make it even more difficult for artists to profit from their work!"
I was hoping this was about REAL pirates. With swords. I'd join that party.
-pH
Unfortunately current intellectual property law does alot more to protect the rights of publishers and corporations than it does to ensure that artists and inventors can profit from their work.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's tough to figure out. As a consumer, I don't want to pay $18 for a CD with one good song.
As an artist, I don't want to be penniless because all my work is taken for nothing. It may seem like it costs little to distribute, but you have to pay hosting fees, you have to pay someone to design and maintain the website, you have to pay extra for all that bandwidth if people actually download a lot of things. That's just distribution.
What about the time and effort and skill and practice that went in to making the art? If anyone could make awesome art, music, writing, etc. they could just do it themselves, and not take someone else's.
I think things need to change, but I don't think the change is as simple as making everything free.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As an artist, I don't want to be penniless because all my work is taken for nothing. It may seem like it costs little to distribute, but you have to pay hosting fees, you have to pay someone to design and maintain the website, you have to pay extra for all that bandwidth if people actually download a lot of things. That's just distribution.
A little research and $30 a month for your standard cable line and this can be done for well... $30 a month. Which most people pay anyway. It's not that hard to set up you're own webserver, nor to write your own website. Anyone with a brain and a few hours free time can learn HTML and write a web site.
quote:I think things need to change, but I don't think the change is as simple as making everything free.
I don't think that's what the Pirate Party advocates. They advocate copyright reform. Not removal. And they're still getting started, so I imagine more detail on just what they're reforming to will be forth coming.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: "Whee, let's make it even more difficult for artists to profit from their work!"
I was hoping this was about REAL pirates. With swords. I'd join that party.
-pH
Unfortunately current intellectual property law does alot more to protect the rights of publishers and corporations than it does to ensure that artists and inventors can profit from their work.
Oh no! Making money off of music is so terrible! Especially when you've already put up all the money to enable the music to be made and distributed and promoted and played!
FYI, the copyright law protects the copyright holder. And mechanical royalties go to the songwriter, not the Big Bad Corporation.
quote:Oh no! Making money off of music is so terrible! Especially when you've already put up all the money to enable the music to be made and distributed and promoted and played! [Roll Eyes]
All WHAT money? Sure instrument and equipment costs. That'll reach maybe $2000 if you're smart about it. $4000 if you're going to include the cost of a computer you use for a crapload of other stuff. Other than that it costs jack shit. If I thought myself a half decent fiddler (which I'm not yet) I could make a band and put a whole bunch of fiddle tunes on the web for litterally nothing. If you're paying money to make and distribute music then you need to do some research my friend.
Topics to research: Computer recording equipment and programs - clean recordings for next to nothing if you take the open source route. Linux web servers + html - not as hard to learn as people would have you believe. If you don't like linux, do it with a mac. Again the software is available free. There are free html tutorials online, takes a few hours to learn. Cable/DSL connections - I get one free from my college, you could get one for about $30 a month that works brilliantly for hosting a website. Domain name - If you're really picky and want a pay domain name with the name of your band and all that, about $30 a year. Marketing - post on forums, get people to link to you, get a google rating. If you're music's good, GG. If not, why the heck would you expect to make money in the current comercial market?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, seriously. "All what money?" Do you know how much some of this stuff costs? Sure, you can record your album in your garage on your computer. How are you going to get it into stores? I mean, yeah, you can sell it online, but how are you going to get it onto iTunes? 'cause CDBaby takes a gigantic chunk of your revenue there. And to put things on iTunes, you have to have an account with such privileges. Do you know how hard it actually is to get a distribution deal?
I need to do my research? I wrote longass business plans and analyses of the subject to get my degree. Maybe I should change my name to "pH, now with marketing/music industry degree" so that people can stop giving me the same disrespectful response every time I give my opinion on the subject.
You don't. The whole point is online distribution. Not going the current commercial route. Either pay per download or having people pay and mailing the cd to them (pay per download actually makes more sense). You don't have to get it into iTunes or CDBaby.
quote:Do you know how hard it actually is to get a distribution deal?
Put it up on your own website. Don't try and get a distribution deal. The whole point is to distribute it yourself, indie style. You'd be shocked how well stuff gets around on the net with a few strategic forum postings and lj writings. Stuff gets around if people like it. And if people don't, then you're sorta screwed anyway.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see, this is why I really need to stop getting into these discussions. Because it's like picking at a scab. I freaking hate the attitude that gets shot in my direction. If you know a poster has an engineering degree and you don't, you don't go telling them to "do your research" when they give an opinion on engineering. Or medicine. Or statistics. Or economics.
I could give you my very long spiel on trends in the music industry. I could probably dig up some of my old papers on the subject. But even if I did, it wouldn't do any good because there are always people like you who post who are completely unwilling to give me any respect whatsoever. Which is why I feel that it's futile for me to approach these threads logically. And I really wish I could resist the urge to keep picking this damn scab.
You aren't interested in any kind of informed discussion unless it's in accordance with your "Damn the Man" attitude toward major labels.
posted
Its not a matter of respect. It's a matter of a different view of how to do things. You think the standard industry way of how to do things is better. We think this way is better. And we know it works, cause we've seen people use it. We also know the tried and true industry way works to a degree as well. We just prefer our version cause its a little more individual oriented than megacorp.
If you want to agree to disagree that's fine by me. You can stick to your industry and I'll go buy my music online.
And support the Pirate Party!
But there's more to supporting the Pirate Party than just music copyright issues. The copyright and intellectual property laws are out of hand. The fact that companies can make think tanks that just submit patents to prevent anyone else from patenting it is sick. They never even do any research on the ideas they come up with. They just patent it so that no one else can. That's not cool!!
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Its not a matter of respect. It's a matter of a different view of how to do things. You think the standard industry way of how to do things is better. We think this way is better. And we know it works, cause we've seen people use it. We also know the tried and true industry way works to a degree as well. We just prefer our version cause its a little more individual oriented than megacorp.
If you want to agree to disagree that's fine by me. You can stick to your industry and I'll go buy my music online.
1. I get the vast majority of my music online. 2. You don't KNOW. 3. I don't think that the "standard industry way" is the best way. In fact, you know jack about what I think is the best way. All you know is that I don't think the major labels are the Great Satan. And that I understand the workings of mechanical royalties.
Let me rephrase that. I know it can work. Cause I've seen it work for people. Did they make piles of money and become world famous? No. Did they make money and keep making music? Yes. And personally if you're in it for the music, shouldn't that be all you need?
quote:3. I don't think that the "standard industry way" is the best way. In fact, you know jack about what I think is the best way. All you know is that I don't think the major labels are the Great Satan. And that I understand the workings of mechanical royalties.
Ok, well I'm working on the impression I'm getting in our short exchange here and the little bit of you're posts I've seen in other music threads. I know you know about the mechanical workings of the industry and I had the impression you supported those over the alterantives. You seem to be very much against the alterantive offered by those such as me and the pirate party.
So let me redirect this conversation (and in the process derail my own thread a bit, feel free to rerail it ) before you bite my slightly tipsy head off. What would you think is this best method for all of this?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that there is a "best method." The thing is, there are certain genres for which the digital distribution strategy isn't practical, and success to the degree of being able to live comfortably using that strategy are pretty rare. I realize that it's rare under the "current" strategy (although the industry is fragmenting, so there really isn't one current strategy anymore). I know people who've had nicely-selling records and been on great tours who still have to get jobs in between touring to pay the rent. I also know a band which has, if I recall, been deemed one of the most successful unsigned acts in the world. And they've been doing it for ten years.
I think the biggest step to making any kind of improvement is to first of all, stop thinking that if you aren't music solely for the sake of music, you are a sellout. As long as making money on music is considered bad, no one can get anywhere. Same goes for seeing major labels as evil. Indie labels often give artists even worse deals. The big advantage of the major label is the availability of widespread distribution, in both tangible and digital format, and the promotional backing. Oh, and also the tour money. And the connections. I think that all labels need to stop signing artists willy-nilly. You can tell when an indie label has gone to crap when they have four artists signed, one gets big, and they immediately run out and sign twenty more.
Will legal downloads ever replace CDs? I can't be sure of that. I mean, CDs haven't even completely replaced vinyl, for crying out loud. And there really is something to having something you can hold in your hand.
Bah, I need to go buy myself a milkshake before the Micky D's closes; I'm like...nine hundred calories short today. I return later.
posted
Ok, well here's my problem. Current copyright law does a whole hell of a lot more than just protect the musician's right to make money off their work. I have nothing against musician's making living wage off their work (I have some problem with them making great galloping piles of dough and becoming world famous for it, only to fade in a few years, still with the rich). But here's the thing, current copyright law also allows for people to copyright computer code. To copyright books for basically the life of the author and a little beyond. To copyright freaking ideas. Patent law, which is closely linked, allows companies to snatch up inventions and then sit on them. Making sure they never really get beyond the idea stage. This is not good.
I don't think the Pirate Party would be against artists making living wage off their music either. If you go over to their board and mention this fact it's entirely possible that they will take it in to consideration in their attempts to offer an alternative to the current copyright system.
Of course, that probably won't matter if they can't raise enough support to make their voice heard.
Anyway, I'm off to bed for tonight. G'night.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
pH, if you wanted respect, getting snarky and acting like you know EVERY single little thing about the music industry in every music thread (that I've read on Hatrack), won't get you anywhere . Just becuase you have some fancy music business degree does not mean that your OPINION on the music industry is always right.
pH, if you wanted respect, getting snarky and acting like you know EVERY single little thing about the music industry in every music thread (that I've read on Hatrack), won't get you anywhere . Just becuase you have some fancy music business degree does not mean that your OPINION on the music industry is always right.
/rant
Yeah, but yours doesn't have to be either. And I get really sick of the Major Labels Are Evil BS that I see around here, along with the "Well, you should REALLY be in it for the MUSIC."
It's like if you had a genetics degree, and people were constantly ranting about how evil your field was. You get sick of it after a while. One of the big problems the major labels have is that even when they try to do something good, they're still villified. It's pointless and useless. I used to be all Damn the Man about the music industry until I actually got INTO it and started working there. Yeah, you know, actual experience to go with my "fancy music business degree."
posted
Out of curiosity, do you know if the Pirate Party supports a form of preferential voting? Cause that's a reform that we could really use.
quote:"Whee, let's make it even more difficult for artists to profit from their work!"
I really don't think that's the intention of copyright / patent reformists, nor do I think that it will be an effect of such reforms overall. Undoubtedly some artists would make less money under a system with fewer restrictions of the kind that are currently in place, but others would make more. How it all balances out is an open question.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Ok, well here's my problem. Current copyright law does a whole hell of a lot more than just protect the musician's right to make money off their work. I have nothing against musician's making living wage off their work (I have some problem with them making great galloping piles of dough and becoming world famous for it, only to fade in a few years, still with the rich). But here's the thing, current copyright law also allows for people to copyright computer code. To copyright books for basically the life of the author and a little beyond. To copyright freaking ideas. Patent law, which is closely linked, allows companies to snatch up inventions and then sit on them. Making sure they never really get beyond the idea stage. This is not good.
I don't think the Pirate Party would be against artists making living wage off their music either. If you go over to their board and mention this fact it's entirely possible that they will take it in to consideration in their attempts to offer an alternative to the current copyright system.
Of course, that probably won't matter if they can't raise enough support to make their voice heard.
Anyway, I'm off to bed for tonight. G'night.
I don't understand your problem with people being famous for music. Why is that bad? Do you have a problem with celebrity in general? Because in my opinion, celebrities will always and have always existed in one form or another.
What kind of "living wage" are you thinking of? And what's wrong with making more than that living wage?
I don't have any problem with people getting rich off their music. I don't have any trouble with people being famous. And I don't think there's anything wrong with deciding to persue a music career with the idea that one might become rich and famous one day, as long as that's not the sole purpose or the sole goal.
I do have a problem with hamburgers being too big for me to fit in my mouth. It makes me cranky.
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: A little research and $30 a month for your standard cable line and this can be done for well... $30 a month. Which most people pay anyway. It's not that hard to set up you're own webserver, nor to write your own website. Anyone with a brain and a few hours free time can learn HTML and write a web site.
As long as we're citing credentials, I've been a webmaster for 10 years. If you expect anyone to download your music, it costs a lot more than $30 a month for your Internet connection. Any connection you get for $30 a month will have a relatively low cap on your upload speed, which is what you need if people are downloading music from your server. Once you start getting any traffic, you'll need to get a higher priced connection, and your Internet provider will probably insist that you get a business account.
If you are planning to do this for a living, you'd be a fool to host your own webserver at home regardless. No redundancy, no up time guarantee, low speed. And unless you're a professional web designer, network admin, and webmaster, you're going to have a hell of a time keeping your system hacker proof, professional, and even simply running.
Just picking up HTML for Dummies and tossing together a web page doesn't give you secure downloads, credit card transactions, podcasting, or any of the other things you're going to want. How many musicians have all those skills, and the time to devote to keeping their server going while they're trying to write and record?
The answer just isn't that simple. Heck, it's not even that simple on paper, let alone trying to make it work in the real world. And if you think a couple live journal posts and some message board time is going to get you enough downloads to make a "living wage" at your music, I think you've got some seriously high expectations.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by pH: Yeah, but yours doesn't have to be either.
[/QB]
Since when did I say my opinion had to be right? Maybe I should take your stance and tell you that you don't know jack all about my opinion on this subject. lol. But since it doesn't sound like you want to hear out anyone elses opinion I don't think I will bother.....
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, why isn't there a service that lets artists upload media and customers download it for a price set by the artist? With the service taking a fixed amount from the top, like the way cafepress does it. Or perhaps an amount proportional to the size of the file. DRM, file formats and bitrates are at the whim the artist. Artists would be allowed to distribute through other methods as well, possibly at different prices (their own site, other services like this hypothetical one, etc.). The service could even do rating systems and associations like last.fm and pandora, or even active promotion for an extra fee. The most popular tracks could have an optional bittorrent (or bittorrent-like) download option -- faster download and less server load. Plus there could be an optional way of paying artists directly, over and above the asking price for a given track. So, any reason why this idea wouldn't work?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because there is no profit margin in it for the people who create artifical scarcity of resources. You know, the Pentavirate.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to point out the copyright reform is only one of the three core issues the Pirate Party hopes to address, here's what they say on their website about each issue:
quote: Copyright
The basis of copyright law in the United States descends from Article One, Section Eight of our Constitution. Section Eight allows for exclusive rights to creative works in order to promote "progress of science and the useful arts." The need for exclusive rights at the time was real; the costs of publishing a book or distributing a scientific journal were not insignificant, and a monetary incentive, to encourage publishers to print and distribute those works, was necessary. However, the Framers of the Constitution believed, as we do, that Free and Open distribution is the ideal; copyright law is an unfortunate compromise that was at one time necessary to provide an avenue to recoup costs. As such, the Framers instituted copyrights for "limited times" only; once an opportunity to recoup costs had passed, open distribution could once again be in an open manner.
Privacy
When the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, the founding fathers did their best to frame precedent for the far future, while still recognizing that there were some scenarios they could never predict. As technology has progressed, the computer has proved to be one of these situations that defy the traditional view of law and order; new laws must be passed for those situations that , like digital information, are outside the scope of the Constitution. This has happened numerous times in the past. In 1996, amid increased concerns of privacy of health and medical records, Congress passed HIPAA to give Americans the right of greater privacy regarding their own health. In 1999, as companies began to trade extensively in consumer data, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which ensured that consumers knew how companies would collect and use their information. Now, in 2006, another privacy act is needed, this time to make sure that consumers' data is not abused by the entities that collect and trade it in the online world.
Net Neutrality
In the aptly named 'age of information,' the Internet must remain an open tool for the people. Though commerce is a necessary function of any truly successful system, there is still a fundamental structure to the Internet that has allowed it to develop into what we see today. This premise that comprises the very backbone of the Internet is the open exchange of ideas.
Innovation, sparked by an open-ended system in which any user can offer data to any other user, has given us services like VoIP, IM, P2P, and a myriad of others. The Internet has transformed from a basic connection between four universities into the most powerful business tool ever. There have been spectacular failures, and incredible successes, but every company has started with the same opportunity: offer content, services, products- things that users want- and succeed.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Because there is no profit margin in it for the people who create artifical scarcity of resources. You know, the Pentavirate.
See, that's the thing. They don't need to create artificial scarcity to make money. Speaking for myself as a consumer, I'd much rather pay for media knowing exactly how much of my money goes to the artist. Also, I have not bought anything from the iTunes store since it became difficult to remove the DRM from the files. If they sold DRM-free media, those "evil" record companies would have a lot more of my money. I know I'm not alone.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember a while back there was a website created where you could give money directly to artists. The idea was that you downloaded their song free from Napster, and if you felt like it was worth money, you could send money directly to the artist. They had some auditors to certify that all the money went to the artists. I guess if you just really liked an artist, you could send them money too.
As you may notice, nothing big has come of this website (if it's still around, I certainly don't remember what it was called), music still isn't free, and the artists didn't all get rich by cutting out the middle man.
I don't know why it failed. There are artists like Jonathan Coulton who sell and give away their music on their websites, and try to gain enough popularity to go pro and make a living. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but it sure doesn't look easy.
If someone can figure out the new, successful business model, rather than just blab about how awesome it would be if everything well, was just awesome and so awesome and yeah, free everything, awesome... well they'd be rich and everything would be so awesome. Get on it, pirate slackers!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree almost completely with pH and the Cow, I should point out that the major labels ARE pretty much evil incarnate.
I didn't always feel this way. But given that the last two CDs I bought from Sony don't comply with normal CD standards and don't play in my computer's CD player -- which, since my computer functions as my stereo receiver, makes them useless to me -- and the latest DVD I rented from Disney doesn't comply with DVD standards and doesn't play in my computer's DVD player, I'm getting rather annoyed.
Frankly, these attempts to make their media unplayable -- especially when combined with the restrictions on CableCards for PCs, which would eliminate the kludgy remote control setup on my DISH box, the changes to Vista and WMP11 that propagate license protection virally, etc. -- are making me MORE inclined to just jump to open source OS solutions and pirate everything.
Because here's the thing: it's STILL all available illegally. And the copies that are available illegally play on my equipment, can be ported to ALL of my equipment, and are in every way more flexible and useful to me than the crippled stuff that's being sold nowadays. It's like getting illegal copies of books in .PDF or .doc format, or old game ROMs for your PocketPC; at some point, attempts to protect the content wind up restricting it on too many platforms, and people wind up taking matters into their own hands.
But the content will ALWAYS get hacked. It's pretty much inevitable.
So every time they inconvenience me or install a rootkit on my computer to protect their investment, all they're REALLY doing is encouraging me to download an unprotected copy of something I already own.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely agree with you there TomDavidson. It frustrates me to no end when I spend my hard earned money on media, and the copy protection makes it difficult or impossible to play.
I'm the paying customer, they should be catering to me, trying to make me want to buy their goods, not pissing me off so that I'll be tempted to get them for free so they don't crash my computer and I can make a copy of a CD to play in my car without jumping through hoops.
Even if the corporations aren't completely evil, and just mostly evil, they're still run by idiots with their heads up inside warm parts of their lower bodies.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that pH knows more about this than I could ever hope to and as such, I shouldn't dare to even offer an opinion, but I've got to wonder how much knowledge and right to speak, comparatively, do the many recording artists who have decried the practices of the RIAA and music companies have? Though I know I, myself, should be ashamed of questioning the opinion of someone like pH, I have to feel like maybe they might have some legitimate views on this issue.
In fact, I'm somewhat confused as to how there could be any such artists, let alone a large number of them, given that pH (unimpeachable authority that she is) entered this topic with:
quote:"Whee, let's make it even more difficult for artists to profit from their work!"
Peraps pH, with her oh so weighty undergraduate degree, could explain this to me?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon seems to be happy with the "Living Wage" for artists.
THe costs of living...how do we figure that? Well, the living wage should be $10/hr, but your song is only 3 minutes long so that's 1/20th of an hour, so assume you sell 100 songs we make that a total of 1/2 a penny per song is the artists contribution. Add another 1/2 penny for each member of the band and the writer, and off you go.
This doesn't seem to allow for professional artists to have time to practice, hone their skills, work at being great.
Instead, they can maybe perform their songs at weddings and concerts and such, but then that won't get them too much money because a free copy of the song could be played over a descent sound system.
What of t-shirt sales and such at the concerts? Well, if you can afford a good artist to create your shirt art, some folks may be interested in buying them, but usually the shirts and souveniers come after the fame, not before.
You don't go to doctors that charge only a living wage. You don't go to lawyers that only charge a living wage. You don't learn from profesors or teachers who are barely making a living wage. Why should we expect good art to come from artists who we set up to maybe make a living wage.
And when they are too tired from their better paying job flipping burgers, do you expect these artists not to jump at the chance to sell out to corporate or political dollars?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The good news, I think, is that The Pirate Party may not really be necessary, in the long run.
After all, YouTube has become successful on the premise that it can make a profit giving away content for free. Slowly but surely, the same business model will be applied to music, because where profit can be found, somebody will eventually follow. And once music can be purchased for free somewhere, no strings attached, the rest of the industry will be forced to follow, or risk being priced out of the market. After all, why would you bother to buy a CD when some site is offering just as good music for free if you just click on their page and be subject to a couple ads?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alcon seems to be happy with the "Living Wage" for artists.
THe costs of living...how do we figure that? Well, the living wage should be $10/hr, but your song is only 3 minutes long so that's 1/20th of an hour, so assume you sell 100 songs we make that a total of 1/2 a penny per song is the artists contribution. Add another 1/2 penny for each member of the band and the writer, and off you go.
This doesn't seem to allow for professional artists to have time to practice, hone their skills, work at being great.
Instead, they can maybe perform their songs at weddings and concerts and such, but then that won't get them too much money because a free copy of the song could be played over a descent sound system.
What of t-shirt sales and such at the concerts? Well, if you can afford a good artist to create your shirt art, some folks may be interested in buying them, but usually the shirts and souveniers come after the fame, not before.
You don't go to doctors that charge only a living wage. You don't go to lawyers that only charge a living wage. You don't learn from profesors or teachers who are barely making a living wage. Why should we expect good art to come from artists who we set up to maybe make a living wage.
And when they are too tired from their better paying job flipping burgers, do you expect these artists not to jump at the chance to sell out to corporate or political dollars?
The "living wage" I had in mind was middle class type living wage. Profs salary, teachers salary, that sorta thing.
And I've got online distribution in mind. Each artist has their own website which has songs that you pay to download. Add live performances (a recorded song played over a sound system just isn't the same as seeing a band live).
And YouTube isn't profitable for anyone but the website's managers. I don't think any of the folks adding content make a cent off the adds.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that it's profitable for them yet, either.
Here's an example of a site that favors the artists. Prices are similar to iTunes, but the artist gets 80% of the total instead of what's left after iTunes takes their 30% and the record label takes whatever they take. MySpace is working up the same sort of thing, and you can already sell your own CDs through CafePress and CDBaby.
But I need reference. I need a way to tell what the heck all this music is before I start buying. They need a system -- like you find at Pandora, Yahoo music, last.fm, etc -- that tells me if I like Artist A I'll also like Artist B. That's why I never bothered with MP3.com in either of its incarnations; there's just too many songs to wade through in the hopes I'll stumble across one I like.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) before you bite my slightly tipsy head off. What would you think is this best method for all of this?
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I return later.
