|
|
Post by matt on Jul 30, 2014 16:38:55 GMT -6
Here's an article by Digital Music News on the current state of affairs. It's been discussed on other threads here at RGO, but this article condenses the subject into one fat, depressing mass of facts: 13 Lies |
|
|
|
Post by kevinnyc on Jul 31, 2014 13:07:27 GMT -6
Well that was depressing...
|
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Jul 31, 2014 15:57:28 GMT -6
I'll just sell everything now..
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jul 31, 2014 18:27:04 GMT -6
The internet music idea reminds me of The Beatles Apple idea. You know, now anybody with talent can get the exposure and recognition they deserve. It is a fantasy now, just as it was then. Just as The Beatles/Apple got inundated with crap, so has the internet. I just do not understand why any artist would ever give their work away for free. Snippets? Sure. But full songs and albums. It's stupid imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 31, 2014 20:21:09 GMT -6
The difference is that the Beatles were actually trying to do it whereas the internet crowd will make up anything in order to get people to invest in their companies and make them rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Jul 31, 2014 21:30:31 GMT -6
I don't like where we are heading. Property right's seem to be a thing of the past the content creators are getting smashed by the "free" crowd while they espousing free internet we are copping more and more regulations in the "real" world. Keep the muppets distracted while we take their real freedoms.... scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 1, 2014 8:46:19 GMT -6
Perhaps the only hope is that people eventually realize that the "democratization" of information does not equal "free" in an open market. It's as if every single user, upon discovering this thing called the Internet, claimed the whole thing for themselves, as if The Web and all it represents was something abandoned by the trash bin outside their door. IMHO it is an absurd situation enabled by the Frankensteining of such technologies as peer-to-peer file sharing and data streaming, followed up by the irresponsible and even criminal release of the same on a naive, amoral, unsuspecting world. Add the ruthless exploitation of these technologies by effectively unregulated businesses and we have a perfect storm where intellectual property rights get trampled. And it's not just music being killed; creative art of all kinds has been impacted.
And then there's unintended consequences, such as with mp3 players, and iTunes and the 99 cent song: enter The Playlist, and the death of the Album. It's a hard time to be an artist, for sure.
I make music because I love doing it: I am amazed by the evolution of music production software, and GAS on the hardware. And it gives me a ready excuse to hang with my mates, drink a few adult beverages, and create something no one has ever heard before. If I never make a single dollar doing it, so be it. But I honor and defend intellectual property rights to the bitter end, and hope above all else that things change for the better.
It's my music and I own it. It's not a free gift to a shallow, ungrateful world.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 1, 2014 10:25:41 GMT -6
I very recently got into it with an acquaintance of mine, he stereotypically was bragging about how he doesn't pay for any music, i let him spew and baited him a bit, feeding him as much rope as i thought useful, then i proceeded to inform him that he's a thief 8) Then as expected, he went into "the" defensive delusional spiel...., but what i didn't expect, was for him to start blaming the creators of music  , and how they should be doing it for the love of it(well duh), and expect nothing monetarily in return?? He also espoused some of the myths in matts original post. I basically responded with "Really?.. that is some of the most delusional shit i've ever heard?? Artists own what they've created, and are entitled to compensation for it's consumption, the same as hershey owns their candy bars, and if you take/eat one without paying for it, you are stealing and you should be arrested and charged with the crime of larceny...end of story, end of this conversation". I baited him originally with the thought of "let me see if i can corner and shame this dude into a reasonable headspace?" fat chance...., people see only what they want to see. the incredibly sad thing is, this morally bankrupt society we live in, values candy bars that they shit out the next day, more than creations from the hearts and souls of it's artists, that they enjoy time and again... |
|
|
|
Post by henge on Aug 1, 2014 10:28:06 GMT -6
mmmmm candy....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 1, 2014 10:47:31 GMT -6
Matt, democratization is the biggest lie I've ever run into. The consequences of MP3 were very much intentional because the Silly-Con Valley investment bankers needed applications to run on personal computers that would require people to buy new, ever more powerful computers.
Our problem is that the RIAA didn't understand that they were taking on larger corporations than the major labels and not student hackers because Silly-Con Valley had pulled off a massively effective PR campaign. I lived in Northern California until 2001 and these guys make the worst I'd seen in the music industry look like saints. They are fleecing us and, in the end, their stockholders.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 1, 2014 11:04:32 GMT -6
blaming the creators of music , and how they should be doing it for the love of it(well duh), and expect nothing monetarily in return T, next time you see your friend, ask him how he would feel if his boss told him he should be doing his job for the love of it, and to expect pay for his work is offensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 1, 2014 11:27:34 GMT -6
It's the law of unintended consequences...Whatever it is that you intend to do, you will likely do the exact opposite
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 1, 2014 11:29:48 GMT -6
The only thing that will save music is government legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 1, 2014 11:30:23 GMT -6
The only thing that will save music is government legislation. Which will then immediately fuck us due to the law of unintended consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 1, 2014 11:48:04 GMT -6
Matt, democratization is the biggest lie I've ever run into. The consequences of MP3 were very much intentional because the Silly-Con Valley investment bankers needed applications to run on personal computers that would require people to buy new, ever more powerful computers. Our problem is that the RIAA didn't understand that they were taking on larger corporations than the major labels and not student hackers because Silly-Con Valley had pulled off a massively effective PR campaign. I lived in Northern California until 2001 and these guys make the worst I'd seen in the music industry look like saints. They are fleecing us and, in the end, their stockholders. Agreed, this is who I mean by "unregulated businesses" and their relentless manipulation of emerging technologies to beat the competition and build monopolies, regardless of the collateral damage. And the public eats it all up, driven by selfishness and a false sense of entitlement. People have forgotten that There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch: somehow, some way, everyone pays. Always. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 1, 2014 11:56:39 GMT -6
The only thing that will save music is government legislation. Which will then immediately fuck us due to the law of unintended consequences. Sadly, this is all too true. Add to this the reality that most, if not all, legislation contains Easter Eggs for those with vested interests, and you have an intractable situation. My only hope is that people will eventually wake up and realize that The Arts must be supported with more than Spotify listen counts and Web page hits. The product of the artist must be seen as having the same value, regardless of the media over which it is delivered. Unfortunately, we will all probably be dead before this happens. If ever. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 1, 2014 12:18:39 GMT -6
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098 
|
Post by ericn on Aug 1, 2014 16:39:32 GMT -6
About 2 years ago My wife's boss, a Published MD, Professor, gave everybody a Mixed holiday CD she burned as a present . I was pissed , a lady who has copyrights who makes a nice living Stealing .
What really pissed me off after some digging was I knew at least 3 people who had either publishing, performance or writing royalties stolen from them.
Since the lady had burned the CD at work. The next day my wife Xeroxed the woman's book outside her office, when she asked what my wife was doing she said she was makeing her Chrstmas present for every KU MED resident!
The Doc finally got the picture.
At the kids old school the principal held a movie night fundraiser charged a buck a head. When my next royalty check came in the door, I explained that these checks were what payed for his PA and my other gifts and if he ever didn't get clearance again the gifts and my skills would disappear ! He got the picture.
What I am saying is this we have to show people that this is our lively hood in their terms !
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 1, 2014 17:33:21 GMT -6
All that was ever needed was to enforce the damned law! People who uploaded thousands of songs should have been prosecuted as criminals exactly as the law calls for. Civil lawsuits were not an appropriate response. Unfortunately the recording industry chickened out.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098
|
Post by ericn on Aug 1, 2014 22:20:58 GMT -6
My theory is E books will save us, it isn't cheap to pirate hardcover books, but e books are simply files. The Publishing Companies
will force legislation that will do something!
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 1, 2014 22:27:45 GMT -6
My theory is E books will save us, it isn't cheap to pirate hardcover books, but e books are simply files. The Publishing Companies will force legislation that will do something! great observation E! this is true, and it will set a precedent.... i think...? The whole idea that we have these threads is absurd in the day and age of "Intellectual property". You know what observation i've made that rivals yours E? us moosishans should have stayed in school long enough to have learned how to get PAID lol. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 1, 2014 23:58:14 GMT -6
If the RIAA and the heads of the labels had just paid Napster to be the distribution center for all digital music content, we wouldn't be living in this hell right now. Instead, they went at Napster with lawsuits and threats, but hadn't realized that this was the Internet, and the public, and the record companies didn't get to the technology before the public did.
That's just my opinion on all of this. How do we fix it? Lobbying congress. If China can prohibit Google from being in that country you can't tell me that every other country on earth cannot ban the distribution of illegal file sharing. But, is this the problem now? Nope, the record labels are so far behind on this it's unbelievable. In a knee jerk reaction they sold out the rights of good people like John Kennedy and everyone of us by having the mentality "at least something isn't nothing" and gave the rights to streaming. That's the future now, just like Napster was in the day, streaming is the easy way to get your music. If the record companies were not so damn dumb, they would understand that now they have the same exact leverage that Napster had, and use that leverage to get the proper royalties for the people that create music.
People want music streamed now, even I love the idea, but I at least pay for it every month, and would be glad to pay more if they required it, but, they don't. $10 per month is all you can pay to Spotify. I still buy albums, but now I buy from HDtracks.com Hi res, and I pay what a CD used to cost, and I get up to 96/24 on some albums, it's great. But, to the public, this won't ever be what is demanded, it's going to be streaming, and pretty much is now. So, RIAA, record labels, go out, spend the money on lobbying congress with an actual plan that forces these streaming companies to open the books and prove their claims. SOMEONE has to set a damn precedent here so that it can create a firestorm of law suits in our favor to get things back on track. But, this is all in the labels hands, it's got nothing to do with the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 2, 2014 7:27:39 GMT -6
If the RIAA and the heads of the labels had just paid Napster to be the distribution center for all digital music content, we wouldn't be living in this hell right now. Instead, they went at Napster with lawsuits and threats, but hadn't realized that this was the Internet, and the public, and the record companies didn't get to the technology before the public did. That's just my opinion on all of this. How do we fix it? Lobbying congress. If China can prohibit Google from being in that country you can't tell me that every other country on earth cannot ban the distribution of illegal file sharing. But, is this the problem now? Nope, the record labels are so far behind on this it's unbelievable. In a knee jerk reaction they sold out the rights of good people like John Kennedy and everyone of us by having the mentality "at least something isn't nothing" and gave the rights to streaming. That's the future now, just like Napster was in the day, streaming is the easy way to get your music. If the record companies were not so damn dumb, they would understand that now they have the same exact leverage that Napster had, and use that leverage to get the proper royalties for the people that create music. People want music streamed now, even I love the idea, but I at least pay for it every month, and would be glad to pay more if they required it, but, they don't. $10 per month is all you can pay to Spotify. I still buy albums, but now I buy from HDtracks.com Hi res, and I pay what a CD used to cost, and I get up to 96/24 on some albums, it's great. But, to the public, this won't ever be what is demanded, it's going to be streaming, and pretty much is now. So, RIAA, record labels, go out, spend the money on lobbying congress with an actual plan that forces these streaming companies to open the books and prove their claims. SOMEONE has to set a damn precedent here so that it can create a firestorm of law suits in our favor to get things back on track. But, this is all in the labels hands, it's got nothing to do with the public. Record cos have no interest in c ing the artists get paid? Why start now? They/publishers have much better deals with spotify types. So who would lobby the bottom feeders in congress on behalf of the Artist? Spot and those other prick sniffers have lobbyists there for the 132 days a year that those senators/reps work(for who ever bribes them best)! I think those congressional sacks of shit make $175k for those 132 days of "work"? Looks like Somebody's getting paid... |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 2, 2014 9:48:06 GMT -6
Actually the labels didn't have any right to make deals for digital distribution without renegotiating their recording contracts with artists. This whole thing is the fault of investment bankers and not record labels in spite of the bullsh!t campaign by the consumer computer industry blaming labels.
Long term positive relationships with artists is how they make the most money. Too many managers and lawyers have screwed artists out of back end income and then wagged their finger at the label involved. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 10:20:06 GMT -6
I work at a level that is below this articles idea of starving, I work for hobbyists, my work is my hobby, I charge pennies and my clients make pennies. My ecosystem won't be hurt by any of this.
|
|
, and how they should be doing it for the love of it(well duh), and expect nothing monetarily in return?? He also espoused some of the myths in matts original post. I basically responded with "Really?.. that is some of the most delusional shit i've ever heard?? Artists own what they've created, and are entitled to compensation for it's consumption, the same as hershey owns their candy bars, and if you take/eat one without paying for it, you are stealing and you should be arrested and charged with the crime of larceny...end of story, end of this conversation". 
