|
|
Post by swurveman on Sept 18, 2015 18:59:19 GMT -6
"Technology is too often viewed as either the saviour or wrecker whenever things go wrong. It’s sometimes both. Digital technology has for a long time been seen by the artists as part of the problem facing their industry, but now it could be the solution to the very difficulties it’s helped create."
I think this is it in a nutshell. The digital revolution is over and artists got slaughtered. So, artists are either going to band together to fight for their rights by coming up with digital solutions that serve their interests, or continue to get slaughtered. That being said, imo some heavy hitters-Foo Fighters, Taylor Swift etc. etc.- are going to have to embrace artist owned platforms. And yeah, these digital platforms will always have to deal with hackers and pirates, but the alternative-doing nothing- is worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 19, 2015 13:21:10 GMT -6
Digital technology is not the problem. It's the scumbags abusing it.
If a few people had gone to prison behind uploading to Napster, we wouldn't have this problem today. The industry wimped out and we are all paying for their paranoia of bad PR. Uploading was and IS a criminal offense but nobody was willing to press charges. Intel paid a few people's judgements and here we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Sept 19, 2015 13:47:53 GMT -6
the bad PR came from the downloaders, not the uploaders tho. Correct me if I'm wrong, but i was told that the reason they don't go after downloaders is because they went after some kid for downloading content and he turned out to have a major disease or something, and everyone thought the plaintiffs were assholes for trying to set an example with this sick kid. if that's not the actual bad PR story, please share the correct one tho.. www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Sept 19, 2015 14:01:49 GMT -6
Blame it on the courts' haywire decision to classify P2P as being the same thing as sharing with IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND IMMEDIATE FRIENDS. That opened the floodgate and everything is being shared; taking from the owner and giving to the masses around the world! Yeah, there's plenty of lawsuit settlements. Members of the legal profession download to their heart's content too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Sept 19, 2015 14:03:21 GMT -6
Everyone I knew made cassette copies of LP's to play in our cars. This has been going on a lot longer than digital audio. The low quality and hassle never made it a large threat to the record co's as low cost crappo 'dolby' encoded cassettes were more convienent to most consumers.
PC digital audio changed all of that as the convienence and quality issues were both overcome. Shouting "katy bar the door" is now about 20 years too late, Pandora isn't getting back into that box anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 19, 2015 14:54:55 GMT -6
EFF is a propaganda machine financed by Intel. The only people who were ever sued are the few who uploaded massive numbers of files. They should have been prosecuted as criminals.
The RIAA never sued anybody. It was the artists, songwriters, publishers and labels. When you hear "RIAA" you can be sure it's just more tech industry propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Sept 19, 2015 15:53:48 GMT -6
actual real life "redistribution of wealth", or just call it what it is, stealing from the poor to appease the poor, i think Bob posted a link to this reality a while back, you can't make people pay now that they've gotten it for free, it would upset the matrix.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Sept 19, 2015 16:19:24 GMT -6
The only people who were ever sued are the few who uploaded massive numbers of files. They should have been prosecuted as criminals. The RIAA never sued anybody. It was the artists, songwriters, publishers and labels. When you hear "RIAA" you can be sure it's just more tech industry propaganda. yeah.. the footnotes in that link I sent definitely say otherwise. If you read more than just the URL of that link, you'll see that they sued lots of folks. I'll quote one footnote link: www.nytimes.com/2004/01/21/business/21WIRE-MUSIC.html?ex=1098849600&en=6fbab6ab32a03237&ei=5070&hp "The music industry returned to the courthouse today with lawsuits against 532 people it is accusing of large-scale copyright infringement." |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Sept 19, 2015 16:27:27 GMT -6
I've been checking some of the footnote links, which lead me to a system long being considered by some labels. It would be a fee imposed by ISPs on subscribers' monthly bill. It's being considered as both mandatory & voluntary. BUT, it puts the big players in the drivers' seat yet again, with Indie labels being excluded, based on popularity - in effect a new internet politics.  This is from 2008. I've vaguely heard of the concept. Has it died in conception? Online Symposium: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/online-symposium-voluntary-collective-licensing-music/ |
|
