User Tag List

First 210111213 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 122

  1. #111
    Senior Member dga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    360

    Default

    I predict copyright law completely falling apart. it is completely provincial to back up old copyright law using local or even national laws, because someone on the other side of the planet may have a totally different situation. So, really, fuck off with this law shit. The internet is bigger than any business or nation's interests. Any attempt to control information distribution is ultimately fascism on a local level.

    Industries that will be affected include print, music, and video. Newspapers are dying out because people get their news online, not because they are stealing papers. In fact, the papers themselves offer the information for free! The music side has been explored well enough in this thread. The nostalgic in me pains to see the book and film industries change, but so be it.

    The change happened before the internet. INdustry had already relinquished power over perosnal expression and production. Cassette tapes allowed home taping. Personal computers allowed individuals to do their own publishing and music production. Video cameras allowed the layperson to shoot their own film. Obviously, the quality of results was more limited in these home ventures, but the technology has advanced. In the late 90s, project studios in spare bedrooms could put together a music product on par with a facility costing millions. 10 years later, it can fit into a bag. The same goes for video cameras. A blockbuster budget is simply not needed to create entertaining and interesting film. I've seen projects where television commercial level quality productions had been shot with a phone camera.

    The money is simply going to disappear from sales of this type of information. Fancy electronic books are going to become as cheap and widespread as bandwidth and hard drive space and book publishers will become endangered. I'm already okay with reading a pdf on my laptop screen. Its not that I wouldnt purchase a book, but enough information I need is already given away in pdf form because the author is trying to reach as many readers as possible.

    Isn't that the entire point of why creative people get into these endeavours, to reach their appreciative audience? Sure, they'd also like ot make a living from it. That is totally understandable. However, creating content alone is no guarantee for success, no matter the investment made. If a film costs 100 million to produce and is a piece of crap, the producer will lose the same amount of money as if it was a hit and was merely downloaded. Same goes for printing a book, or pressing a cd/record. It is as self-entitled to expect income on creative content simply for investment made as by those demanding everything to be free for their own consumption.

    The good news is that people are willing to pay for access to people. Hookers arent selling sex, they are selling access to a body. Lobbyism in govt is not buying laws, it is renting an ear. As discussed, people do buy concert tickets, so musicians should have no problems living off their efforts if they are talented. People pay for seminars and public appearances, so writers can get paid for allowing others to hear their thoughts in a more intimate environment than opening a book that anyone else had access to read. Before film, there was theater. Now, that accounts for the stars and not the technicians that make these creations possible, but the talented techs already have to be resourceful and clever enough to survive, because that is quite often how these stars are born in the first place.

    A logical fallacy thrown around is that if there wasnt any money in these industies, nobody woudl create anything. I've never heard that from anyone that I knew to actually create stuff. Lawyers and business people might argue that, but most artists create because there is an inner drive, whether for expression or recognition, but not for financial rewards. I'm in a band with some friends. Our entire concept is to make music we think others will enjoy and to give it away. We make our money to survive doign other things, so the music thing is a passion of fun. Others may decide to shoot their own film. The gear is not cheap, but so what? Holidays are not necessarily cheap, nor boats or other offroad vehicles, or model airplanes, or rasinign kids and groups of animals, or, or , or , or...

  2. #112
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Of course I wouldn't be against paying them... except that I don't like the license I'm asked to accept when I do. It's more that I feel commercial artists need to be taught a lesson about greed. Most of them are too drunk on fame and money to have a clear image of themselves. If people stop downloading and buying their music in repulsion to their behavior, perhaps they'll think twice about how important they really are in the grand scheme of things. They need to realize that people can live just fine without them or their music, and they really have no right to demand and whine so much.

    Most artists, authors, and creative types have an inflated sense of self-importance, honestly. They're all so, "Oh, look at me, I'm so special and valuable because I create new and unique works of art. You should respect me for that," and they need to be shown their place. The fact of the matter is, people don't need new works of art. People can subsist just fine on old works of art and more useful things. Artists don't appreciate how tentative their position in the world really is, or that it's THEY who need the rest of the world, and not the other way around.
    Wow. You're nuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    And of course, people have been making "mix tapes" since forever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    I think the major concern is that there is a large segment of the population that ONLY get their music through download--that haven't paid a cent for music in years.
    This I can understand.


    but most artists create because there is an inner drive, whether for expression or recognition, but not for financial rewards. I'm in a band with some friends. Our entire concept is to make music we think others will enjoy and to give it away. We make our money to survive doign other things, so the music thing is a passion of fun.
    That's nice, but lots of artists would disagree with that approach because they make their living off their work. And the audience disagrees on the most efficient way to get the compensation to the artists.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #113
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm not sure how the forum decided to remove you from my block list, but in any event--
    you might know about music, but you obviously don't know about computers.
    they don't make mistakes like that. you pressed the button and you're kidding no one.

    Musicians don't make any money, bud. 99% of professional musicians (and I mean professional level, touring, performing acts, not just session players or random kids jerking off in the garage) are not anywhere near the millionaire mark.

    You hear about million dollar contracts and all this shit but those are just loans--bands are businesses selling music/live performances and record labels are investors who want to see a positive return on their investment.

    And being that 95% of commercial music releases actually LOSE money, the bands don't stand to make a whole lot in the first place. Even the successful ones still have to pay for all the production/recording fees, hire a road crew, buy equipment, pay for transportation and food for all their gear and personnel, pay the venue a big cut, pay their management a big cut, pay for any lights or background images or other visual decorations, and still gross enough to pay back all LOANS they got from the record company, with interest.

    Even "big names" that most people know are rarely making that kind of outrageous money, after all expenses are considered. Don't let gross intake figures or big record sales fool you.

    Look up an article called "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini. You can sell 250,000 records on a major label and still end up making less per hour than you would have working at McDonald's.

    btw, Rush is still one of the highest grossing acts every year they tour. It's because they've spent a long time building a solid and widespread market. And here I thought good musicians weren't allowed to be popular!
    where are you getting these numbers?

    anyway, none of this has anything to do with the point i was trying to make. i didn't say anything about musicians getting money.

    rush doing well has very little to do with their talent.
    look who does even better than rush -- kiss.
    i really don't see denying that industry does damage to the prevalence of musical talent and creativity.

    what you need is fiscal sense.

    And here I thought good musicians weren't allowed to be popular!
    is that what i said? i figured it ought to be obvious by natural implication, but for you i'll explain it.

    just saying that there are mostly non-talents making big money [and there are... you really can't deny that] doesn't say that no talents can profit.
    i know you [say you] can't read this, but for an ENTP you sure have a hard time seeing to the nuanced gray between the two extremes of logical expressions.

    did you actually read my post or were you just looking for another way to go off about how musicians don't make money?
    we fukin won boys

  4. #114
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    Wow. You're nuts.
    You aren't even going to tell me why, or tell me what you disagree with?

    Wow. You're boring.

  5. #115
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    You aren't even going to tell me why, or tell me what you disagree with?

    Wow. You're boring.
    It must be the curse of the sane.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  6. #116
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    It must be the curse of the sane.
    Honestly, I exaggerated quite a bit. All I really think is that we should push to create an alternative to commercial music so people aren't locked into one way of doing business.

    I said it that way because I was really just hoping someone would go and try to argue it with me.

  7. #117
    Senior Member laughingebony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    You aren't even going to tell me why, or tell me what you disagree with?

    Wow. You're boring.
    No need. Most of us are already convinced.

    (P.S - I don't actually think you're nuts, but you are severely misrepresenting artists.)

  8. #118
    Senior Member avolkiteshvara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    YaYa
    Posts
    895

    Default

    After a little more thought, there seems to be an equilibrium of success for bands that is regulated by illegal downloads.

    New bands starting out can't wait for consumers to download their music for free.

    Old/popular/established bands want to sell every piece of their intellectual property at the highest price possible( well most at least).

    So it seems that society, either consciously or unconsciously, has put an artificial cap on how much material/wealth success musicians and by proxy record companies, are allowed to acheive.

  9. #119
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    I haven't paid a red cent for music in, oh, probably 10-ish years now. The internet has introduced me to a ton of artists I never would have heard without it, and some of them I have seen live due to hearing their stuff online.

    FWIW, I have a friend who is very high up in one of the record companies (he won't tell me which one because he talks about the deals they're making etc.) and he has been directly involved in negotiations and talks for a number of years re: trying to sort out the issue of free/illegal downloading. From what he says, the record companies are even bigger dinosaurs than they appear in public. They have been massively opposed to file-sharing AND to working with downloaders, and overwhelmingly favoured the "punish a very few of them very harshly and it'll stop the rest" take. They have been dragged kicking and screaming, even to the current situation, which is still crappy (i.e. single moms getting sued for $80 grand).

    My personal opinion? Fuck the record companies. I paid $18 for a CD in the 90's, it was a ripoff, and now I can avoid being ripped off, I do. If I like an artist and they come to town, I see 'em live.

    Filesharing can't be stopped. Record companies need/needed to get their heads out of their asses a lot sooner than they did - and there's an argument to be made that they still haven't.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  10. #120
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    From what I can tell, if technology's place in society continues on the path it's going right now, the entire pretense of intellectual property laws will be dead in just a matter of time.

    This is fine by me.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. Was I being too harsh? :(
    By SecondBest in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-27-2010, 12:52 AM
  2. Piracy and File Sharing
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 01:22 AM
  3. Taking MBTT too seriously
    By snegledmaca in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 02:16 PM
  4. Last Five Files in Your "My Documents" Folder
    By Totenkindly in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO