|
Post by rowmat on May 13, 2016 19:22:53 GMT -6
I don't see where Clinton has sold her soul. All of her corporate connections are what every former New York Senator or Secretary of State would have. They go with both jobs as part of the constituencies she was charged with representing. The legitimate question is what did she do with those connections and was it ever at anybody's expense. I think there's a lot of guilt by association being projected on her in an attempt to discredit her among Democrats. If the $153 Million Hillary and Bill have collected since 2001 in 'speaking fees' primarily from Wall Street banks in closed door meetings doesn't mean she is a Wall Street stooge then I guess I'm just another conspiracy nut. Don't forget the Glass Steagall Act was dismantled during Bill Clinton's tenure and we know where that led. It doesn't matter which side is in the 'great big white building', the song remains the same.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 13, 2016 19:35:13 GMT -6
Every other ex President and Secretary of State is in equal demand for having their brain picked about what's going on in other countries. Their tax returns are on the web. They appear to have given most of the money to their foundation that does a lot of good around the world.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 13, 2016 19:48:03 GMT -6
Every other ex President and Secretary of State is in equal demand for having their brain picked about what's going on in other countries. Their tax returns are on the web. They appear to have given most of the money to their foundation that does a lot of good around the world. I admire your optimism Bob but I disagree. Politicians are little more than corporate puppets paid for with corrupt money, promoted by a corrupt media and 'voted' in by a corrupt voting system. There is little difference between wartime propaganda and peacetime public relations. ie Edward Bernays. I'm a political Athiest so I have no allegiances to any political party or individual.
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 13, 2016 19:58:07 GMT -6
Most of the lobbying in DC is business seeking to inform the regulatory bureaucracy, which isn't elected and has no oversight. Brooksley Born the chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had more insight into the danger of the derivatives market- which collapsed our financial system which we will continue to feel the effect for decades- than the lobbyists and their government surrogates. I get you have faith in Libertarianism. I don't. So, we're not gonna get anywhere going forward. We're good. We both brought forth facts and opinions illustrative of what Americans are thinking.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 13, 2016 20:08:07 GMT -6
Most of the lobbying in DC is business seeking to inform the regulatory bureaucracy, which isn't elected and has no oversight. Brooksley Born the chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had more insight into the danger of the derivatives market- which collapsed our financial system which we will continue to feel the effect for decades- than the lobbyists and their government surrogates. I get you have faith in Libertarianism. I don't. So, we're not gonna get anywhere going forward. 'The Warning' - Frontline PBS www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/warning/
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 13, 2016 20:41:22 GMT -6
IMO the head of the snake is the financial/banking system. Those who have the power to 'print' an unlimited of money out of thin air are able to buy anything, politicians and governments included.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 13, 2016 20:43:43 GMT -6
Q. What is the definition of the word "politics"?
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on May 13, 2016 21:17:33 GMT -6
Q. What is the definition of the word "politics"? Now tell me how to dicuss this topic, which is super important for the future of all members of this board, without talking about politics? Its impossible.... It makes sense to dicuss it because exactly that is what the lobyists want to avoid. So yes we stretch the NoPolitics rule.... for a good reason...our future in this business....
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 14, 2016 1:50:07 GMT -6
Q. What is the definition of the word "politics"?
A. poly = many ticks = blood sucking parasites politics = many blood sucking parasites
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 14, 2016 10:58:25 GMT -6
Can we get the thread title fixed? #grammarNazi #spellingNazi
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on May 14, 2016 15:51:32 GMT -6
I don't know if this is on topic or off topic but check this out: teamsesh.bigcartel.comThat's my 16 yr old's favorite rap group. They give their music away. For free. Downloadable. They sell merch...lots of it and creatively. They sell tickets to their shows. I went to one of them. It was the most exciting and intimidating vibe I've felt at a concert in a long time. Maybe ever. The crowd of 4000 was insane for them...felt like a religious ceremony...a rapture. I left there floored and I hate the music. It's not for me. They know that and they don't care. Seemed like what punk rock must have felt like to my parents, or what the summer of love looked like to my parents parents. The world has moved on gents. We ain't gonna stop it.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 14, 2016 18:41:12 GMT -6
I don't care to stop it, but I'm not going to sell "mercy" instead of music. Creatively or not.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on May 14, 2016 20:47:46 GMT -6
I don't care to stop it, but I'm not going to sell "mercy" instead of music. Creatively or not. What's that mean Dr B? No snark here...I actually don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 14, 2016 23:24:07 GMT -6
BTW - dam spell check. I of course typed "merch" but my laptop knows best and changed it to mercy. LOL
But on point -
There's tons of styles of music that just won't fly with the "must sell merch to survive" paradigm. Obviously works with the group you linked, but I'm in music for the music, and surviving at the cost of merchandising just isn't the way I want to go. The world will turn and days will go by, and things change. And the more they change, the more they stay the same. Music is music. It's spiritual. It's the voice of one's soul. It's purity of spirit. It's not T shirts and flat bill caps and selling "stuff" for the privilege of making music.
Orchestra's and dozens of other styles of music cannot survive with the business paradigm you suggest. They are just as legit, and just as needed as Beiber and JZ and U2 and American Idol/the Voice.
There used to be a day when great musicians wouldn't even allow their music to be used to "sell" merchandise. LOL Those were purer days.... IMO of course.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on May 15, 2016 21:17:57 GMT -6
I guess the point I was making is that the way music is monetized has changed. Copyright seems to have had a value shift.
It seems to me that us lowly content providers have always perceived that we are getting the short end of the stick while the tech wizards and deal makers laugh it up.
Did Jazz musicians or orchestral musicians ever make money off of copyright? I'm sure a few did but I bet more of them are now. Probably not a lot of money but I bet more of them are seeing a little $$. I remember a joke I heard in the early 90s... Why do Jazz musicians never get dropped (from their labels)? Because nobody expects them to sell records anyway.
It seems to me that if various streaming services weren't paying what they are...we would all be getting NOTHING from the pirates.
As a record maker I am getting WAY more work now. It pays less but there's a lot more of it.
If it weren't for streaming services and the people that make them popular, most of the music they don't pay for wouldn't even get heard.
I think it's the best time music has ever seen. There's SO MUCH opportunity to get heard. Billboard only tracks a few hundred albums. Without streaming services the same old gate keepers would be running the show. Now you can find your audience and serve them. And hopefully make some $$. Not to mention the exponential EXPLOSION of demand for content that's occurred.
I'd wager that more people are making a living off of their music now than ever before. I don't have any facts to back that up but I bet it's true. Maybe we all gotta work harder and make better music to get heard above the din...
Let the cream rise!
If we go WAY back in music history we end up with merry bands of traveling performers playing for their supper. I agree music is spiritual...it's lifestyle...it's culture defining and it is ALSO about merch. To my 16 year old son it is. It was to me in 1978 when I got my KISS lunchbox and it is to the hundreds or thousands of kids I see every day in LA sporting their favorite band gear. Bieber and JZ just have a WAY bigger audience than the performers of the higher forms of music. WAY bigger. And they (and their teams) have moved and bobbed with the times. Symphonies have always survived on the donations of wealthy patrons. And all but a tiny handful of Jazz musicians lived subsistence existences. At least now they can get their music to their audience, as small as it is.
Radio had a much smaller audience but a more captive one than YouTube and they paid higher rates because they could demonstrate their advertising effectiveness...you couldn't skip the commercials. When's the last time you DIDN'T skip a commercial on YouTube? Private broadcast has always been about advertising sales. Or it was PBS and NPR...donation supported. So how are they supposed to pay you for using your music if you don't draw traffic to their advertisers? It almost seems to me that we should pay THEM! Its incredible that I can "release" music to the public for ZERO DOLLARS INVESTED! I, for one, would rather put the money in the pockets of the people who are forwarding this most excellent delivery tech than in to the Ferrari of some rock star who, in my humble opinion, does NOT deserve to be fabulously wealthy for writing a few catchy songs or some record exec who's biggest concern is convincing artists that they can't survive without his "access". YouTube let's the market decide what has value. I love it and I advise young bands that I develop to give their music away on line and find their audience.
I'd proffer that because of these streaming services, a life in music has gone from being a pipe dream to a viable career choice for WAY more people. I hope those YouTube and Google execs get RICH AS HELL and stay that way so their services stay healthy and we can all keep using them. They still aren't as cool as us anyway.
My son listens to music for free. If he likes the band he buys stuff from them...including, sometimes, the music he already got for free. He appreciates value. I know I'm gonna lose friends for this one but am I gonna get kicked off the site? Is there such a thing as a virtual lynching?
[
*zero likes* Sorry...
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 16, 2016 9:49:51 GMT -6
This is not a one way or the other situation. There is fairness in the middle. Google and Youtube are playing anything but fair. I'm amazed that you want to keep them rich as hell. You certainly have your wish.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on May 16, 2016 10:52:44 GMT -6
I guess I'm just really excited about all the possibilities brought about by the services. I want them to stay profitable and to flourish. If the smart bastards that run them stay fat and happy then we get to keep using them AND make some $$. The pirate sites ain't gonna give us a penny. If the big boys end up off shore we're not gonna make anything.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 16, 2016 12:55:46 GMT -6
For all intents and purposes, they ARE offshore - but operating in the US. Assets get put into other countries so that they can avoid taxes - just like APPLE. Take from the home boys and keep the goodies out of reach. If Apple kept their assets and profits in the US, our country would be out of debt. Listen, there's LOTS of room for them to make a profit. But off our backs? Really? Google is profitable beyond your wildest imagination, and beyond the imaginations of entrepreneurs in "ordinary" business. They are richer than the majority of countries in the world. How much profit is "enough" profit? Android itself has made 31Billion. How big is big enough. How much taking advantage of others is acceptable for your business model for them to succeed. Whatever it is, I'd say we've eclipsed that on the order of thousands if not millions. Without their lobbyists feeding tens of millions into both political parties, Google would be getting hammered with legislation that would limit their power. www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generated-31-billion-revenue-google-oraclewww.gizmodo.com.au/2014/03/how-much-money-do-tech-giants-like-apple-google-microsoft-and-others-make-every-minute/Time for people to wake up. Music keeps Youtube afloat. Without our "product" they would wither up and die. But they can't compensate fairly? Guess they're not making enough? They don't know how to regulate copyright? Sorry, I cannot contain my laughter on that one. They know how to track every keystroke I make on my computer. For some, limitless riches at the expense of others is all they care about.... They should be more concerned about getting their "just rewards".
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 16, 2016 13:18:44 GMT -6
FYI - just in case it's too difficult to whip out a calculator, Google is netting $60 MILLION in profit (that's not net, that's verifiable PROFIT after expenses) every day.
Could they could take a few days profit and completely change the lives of the musicians of the world who make the music that keeps youtube afloat.....
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 16, 2016 13:40:21 GMT -6
We have a federal election in June here in Australia.
One of the major election issues is the fact that many of the large multinational corporations doing business here in Australia (Apple, Google, etc) pay little or no taxes due to 'creative accounting' and 'offshoring' their profits overseas.
The government's response is... "These companies are not doing anything illegal and are operating within the rules" (obviously the rules require changing) but in the meantime the Government is offering even more tax breaks to the wealthy whilst offering little or no tax relief to the middle class and cutting social services.
You may be interested to know our current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was a former merchant banker who turned a $450,000 investment into a $60,000,000 profit when he sold his stake in Australia's first internet company.
His current net worth is estimated to be somewhere in the $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 range.
Turnbull was also the former head of the Australian division of Goldman Sachs... are we seeing a pattern here?
Go figure!
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 16, 2016 14:26:23 GMT -6
Another player in the "streaming game" is Apple. They make $95Million a day in PROFIT. They have over 200 BILLION is liquid assets - i.e.: CASH. To get an idea of what that is, think of driving down the highway and holding a giant wad of $1000 bills out the window and having one leave the wad every second, every minute, every day, every year..... Instead of paying the approximate 35% in corporate taxes in the US, they offshore it to Ireland and end up paying approximately 3-4%. Thanks apple for helping america out in her time of need..... www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-apple-avoids-paying-in-taxes-2014-6Like rowmat says : "are we seeing a pattern"?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 16, 2016 14:45:03 GMT -6
Another player in the "streaming game" is Apple. They make $95Million a day in PROFIT. They have over 200 BILLION is liquid assets - i.e.: CASH. To get an idea of what that is, think of driving down the highway and holding a giant wad of $1000 bills out the window and having one leave the wad every second, every minute, every day, every year..... Instead of paying the approximate 35% in corporate taxes in the US, they offshore it to Ireland and end up paying approximately 3-4%. Thanks apple for helping america out in her time of need..... www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-apple-avoids-paying-in-taxes-2014-6Like rowmat says : "are we seeing a pattern"? Yep it's a pattern alright! Exactly the same model of 'offshoring' came to light here are few years ago when the corporate 'big wigs' were called before an enquiry to answer questions about their tax minimisation schemes. Ireland seemed to be the country of choice to shift their profits. It's an easy fix. All governments have to do is make rules that says a company must pay tax on the profits it makes to same the country where it makes those profits. Imagine if you or I 'offshored' our earnings to some low taxing overseas country and told our tax department we aren't required to pay taxes in the country where we earn our income as we are just doing the same as Apple, Google etc. How do you reckon that would pan out?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 16, 2016 15:02:57 GMT -6
Here's some of the corporate insider terms for tax havens...
Ireland - "Double Irish Dutch Sandwich" Singapore - "Singapore Sling" Bermuda - "Bermuda Black Hole"
Here's Google Australia's most senior executive 'answering' a few questions during a Senate enquiry into corporate tax minimisation last year.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 16, 2016 15:26:26 GMT -6
Something a lot of people have missed is that you can always offer to let streamers play your music for free. That opportunity isn't going away no matter what happens. All anybody is asking for is control over the property they own.
The difference between now and the past is that it used to be you actually needed to be putting asses in seats at shows before you could attract enough investment to record. There was no such thing as "potential." You had to prove that you could draw listeners or forget it. We no longer have that most basic test of quality screening artists. I don't buy that removing that test has improved opportunity or music. In the past you could earn a living performing prior to becoming famous. What I've always seen is that people mostly get really good at music live in front of an audience. That opportunity is gone today unless you are rich. Most of the Motown artists couldn't have a music career today because of money.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on May 16, 2016 19:56:59 GMT -6
I think some of the arguments we did hear are naive. Those arguments show how easy it is to brainwash some off us on the internet. Silicon Valley wants us to think like this. Well the world changed there is a new technology, and because we have not inventid it we can give our copyright away for free? Jesus christ, sorry I never thought it would go that far that they can divide us. If the copyright laws in the western world fail, because silicon valley did a great lobying job many people in the music business will loose thier jobs. Creating music will become a hobby for those which have enough money anyway. And yes we also talk little composeres like me, we talk young bands starting a career. If we say, well its alright to slaughter our businesses... they do it already, but in this case we give them good arguments to let the copyright laws completly fall. In this case they get what they always wanted.... everythIng for free no restrictions. Sorry no offending, but for one who makes money with music its naive to believe that a young band, or composer gets the rent payed by selling merchs. You need to be famous to make money from this, not all creative friends in our businnes are famous. They love what they do anyway, and that is culture which needs to be protected. Think of Richard Wagner and you know why we have collecting societies today. His music was played everywhere but he was the only one not seeing a dime. We have the same situation again with the internet. Well I wont support it with thinking the way we make money of music has changed. Its like saying the doctor, well I cant pay you but if you get a few pigs and a few cows you can make a living by beeing a farmer.... thank you for your free treatmeant and 12 years of education in medicine.... Sorry but I have the feel some of us do not want to see the whole picture. Just two exampels we all know. Steven Slate went on with selling plug ins instead off AE. David Pesado is doing a big marketing show and now also mixes for people with smaler budgets. How deep should it go before we say its enough! Stop it right now .... please...
|
|