User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 122

  1. #81
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    A man who has grown up on an island alone has no music. Music is the characteristic of a populous, and hence their natural owner.
    I like this.

  2. #82
    Senior Member miked277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    no, not legal property.... the other, ACTUAL kind of property:

    1 a: a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b: an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c: virtue 3 d: an attribute common to all members of a class

    A man who has grown up on an island alone has no music. Music is the characteristic of a populous, and hence they are its natural owner.

    But hey, don't believe me and watch the economics win as always. The internet opened up a near-infinite forum in which to hear songs, which allowed music to proliferate to the point where the exchange value of any song is what the listener ascribes to it (everything is worth what its customer will pay for, afterll). Jay-Z or any other artist demanding that he has a right to my dollar when i've trafficked through the net is like one of those window washers who, after insisting on throwing his service in your face, DEMANDS that you pay something, instead of idly waiting by to see if you tip him. The former is absurd and ignoble, while the latter is honorable, and the musician should do just that. For a single to insist on the "right to money" from a poetic entity that flows through an entire social organism is absurd.
    economics always wins because economics is always right.

    tell me this, how much work do you think goes into making an album? how long does it take? how many people are there on earth that have the capability to produce music worth listening to? how many people other than the artists themselves are involved in creating music? how much is their work worth? what sort of equipment do these artist people need? is this equipment free?

    tell me this also, what do you do to earn money? what if i said everything you do should be free because it serves people other than yourself?

    music doesn't just appear out of thin air once once culture is established you know. people actually have to take time out of their day to make it. similarly, if you invent something that was inspired by someone else does that mean it should be given away completely free of charge?

    artists give their music away early on because no one is willing to buy it. once they have developed a name for themselves and demand grows they have every right to charge for their work. if they want to continue giving their music away that is their choice, it is not YOUR choice or MY choice.

    edit: let's see... what else can we define as "property of the populous"? by your logic, it's not just music that belongs to everyone, any art right? so, books? movies? paintings? clothing? what else can we render free because it comes from culture? can anyone think of other property that belongs to the world? you know what, the list of things we can charge for might actually be shorter than the list of those that are free... let's start there instead ok? i think i'm going to like this new hippie world, everything is free and everybody is happy!
    I'm feeling rough, I'm feeling raw, I'm in the prime of my life.

  3. #83
    Senior Member avolkiteshvara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    YaYa
    Posts
    895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    I think the most interesting aspect of file sharing/trade in general is this: Thugs are better at business and know more economics than most others in the industry.
    Its a question of an old business model vs new one. They are still thinking in the old mindset rather than trying to innovate and use technology to their advantage.

    People will pay $ music. You just have to give them a better product more conveniently.

  4. #84
    Senior Member millerm277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by miked277 View Post
    tell me this, how much work do you think goes into making an album? how long does it take? how many people are there on earth that have the capability to produce music worth listening to? how many people other than the artists themselves are involved in creating music? how much is their work worth? what sort of equipment do these artist people need? is this equipment free?
    This is dependent entirely on the artist's personal preference. For example. Trent Reznor creates, edits/produces, and (since he's now his own record label), sells all of his music entirely independently. This is proof, that although you CAN make a CD cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, it doesn't have to actually cost that much money.

    This debate is irrelevant though. There are hundreds of millions of people using file sharing. They all know it's "illegal". There are absolutely zero feasible means of really deterring them/stopping it. Therefore, the only possible solution.....is make it more enticing to buy it than steal it, or at the very least, EQUALLY convenient as stealing it.
    I-95%, S-84%, T-89%, P-84%

  5. #85
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millerm277 View Post
    This debate is irrelevant though. There are hundreds of millions of people using file sharing. They all know it's "illegal". There are absolutely zero feasible means of really deterring them/stopping it. Therefore, the only possible solution.....is make it more enticing to buy it than steal it, or at the very least, EQUALLY convenient as stealing it.
    +1

    I read an article a while ago about a guy that had set up a music download business during the dotcom bubble in the late 90s. Money was easy to come by and the investors in small companies thought they were onto a sure thing. The business (which was legit) went bust because the record companies wouldn't play ball, to cut a long and protracted story short.

    In a different article, one of the big record companies in London has "tester" sessions: kids are invited in to hear music, see proposed cover artwork, etc. One of the execs noticed that increasingly the kids never bothered with the free promo CDs.

    Basic economics:

    The transmission of preferences

    Through the signalling function, consumers are able through their expression of preferences to send important information to producers about the changing nature of our needs and wants. When demand is strong, higher market prices act as an incentive to raise output (production) because the supplier stands to make a higher profit. When demand is weak, then the market supply contracts. We are assuming here that producers do actually respond to these price signals!

    Sauce: Microeconomics - Price Mechanism
    However, the big four have continued with a strategy that seems doomed to failure. As Athenian says, more or less, the cat's out the bag - for good or bad. The record companies' tactic of pouncing on hapless single mothers and teenagers is just that - a tactic. Whether that scares the technically-savvy downloader I would really doubt. The interwebs move far too fast.

    The perceived value of any good or service is what people think it's worth and are willing to pay.

    For better or worse, the good old days are over for the recording industry and they only have themselves to blame for strategic incompetence. They took on an enemy that they couldn't beat; instead of embracing new technology, they proceded as if it didn't exist; when it's existence could not be denied and threatened their core business, they put single mums in the dock. It's called desperation.

  6. #86
    Emerging Tallulah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    6,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    no, not legal property.... the other, ACTUAL kind of property:

    1 a: a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b: an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c: virtue 3 d: an attribute common to all members of a class

    A man who has grown up on an island alone has no music. Music is the characteristic of a populous, and hence they are its natural owner.

    But hey, don't believe me and watch the economics win as always. The internet opened up a near-infinite forum in which to hear songs, which allowed music to proliferate to the point where the exchange value of any song is what the listener ascribes to it (everything is worth what its customer will pay for, afterll). Jay-Z or any other artist demanding that he has a right to my dollar when i've trafficked through the net is like one of those window washers who, after insisting on throwing his service in your face, DEMANDS that you pay something, instead of idly waiting by to see if you tip him. The former is absurd and ignoble, while the latter is honorable, and the musician should do just that. For a single to insist on the "right to money" from a poetic entity that flows through an entire social organism is absurd.
    This seems absolutely insane, to me--the idea that this generation thinks of music as something that doesn't belong to the artist himself/herself, but rather is something that is just leaked out into the cultural consciousness, and something they have no right to expect compensation for. The idea that the consumer decides to give them money for their product when they are good and ready, if ever. I can see your window washer analogy working if the artist was simply being played on the radio and demanding you give him money--but you are talking about a scenario where someone has acquired the artist's music through downloading it. You now OWN a copy of his/her music to listen to anytime you want, where previously the only way to get that music would be to buy it through whatever medium was available. THAT is the difference. You own it now. The artist didn't throw a CD at you and then hold out his hand. You didn't listen to it on the radio and decide you didn't want to buy it. You acquired it, you own it, it's on your computer and possibly your iPod. You own it, so it's not unreasonable for that artist to expect compensation.

    Having said all that, the business model IS changing, apparently. If an entire generation has been brought up to think the way you do, artists and record companies will have to change and market to the way things are being viewed currently. What y'all don't seem to understand is the following, though:

    Quote Originally Posted by miked277 View Post
    economics always wins because economics is always right.

    tell me this, how much work do you think goes into making an album? how long does it take? how many people are there on earth that have the capability to produce music worth listening to? how many people other than the artists themselves are involved in creating music? how much is their work worth? what sort of equipment do these artist people need? is this equipment free?

    tell me this also, what do you do to earn money? what if i said everything you do should be free because it serves people other than yourself?

    music doesn't just appear out of thin air once once culture is established you know. people actually have to take time out of their day to make it. similarly, if you invent something that was inspired by someone else does that mean it should be given away completely free of charge?

    artists give their music away early on because no one is willing to buy it. once they have developed a name for themselves and demand grows they have every right to charge for their work. if they want to continue giving their music away that is their choice, it is not YOUR choice or MY choice.

    edit: let's see... what else can we define as "property of the populous"? by your logic, it's not just music that belongs to everyone, any art right? so, books? movies? paintings? clothing? what else can we render free because it comes from culture? can anyone think of other property that belongs to the world? you know what, the list of things we can charge for might actually be shorter than the list of those that are free... let's start there instead ok? i think i'm going to like this new hippie world, everything is free and everybody is happy!
    Music takes money to make. It takes time and thought and heart and soul and energy. Musicians who are just starting out are working crappy day jobs and spending all their hard-earned cash to buy equipment and studio time and rehearsal spaces and recording software and who knows what else, all to make this commodity called music. None of this is free. How does a band make a living through their music, or even recoup the costs of said music, if you're not even willing to pay 99 cents or even 79 cents per song for it? If you just expect it for free? Culture don't pay the rent, folks. And it certainly doesn't facilitate making MORE music for you to consume.

    Quote Originally Posted by avolkiteshvara View Post
    Its a question of an old business model vs new one. They are still thinking in the old mindset rather than trying to innovate and use technology to their advantage.

    People will pay $ music. You just have to give them a better product more conveniently.
    I do think that the record companies seriously missed the boat, misread the signs, and are scrambling to catch up. But it does seem a bit ridiculous to me that so many folks are unwilling to buy music at all these days. I think there are a lot of people out there that are just used to getting it for free, and won't stop getting it for free unless there are measures to stop them. It might get ugly before it evens out.
    Something Witty

  7. #87
    Senior Member millerm277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    978

    Default

    However, the big four have continued with a strategy that seems doomed to failure. As Athenian says, more or less, the cat's out the bag - for good or bad. The record companies' tactic of pouncing on hapless single mothers and teenagers is just that - a tactic. Whether that scares the technically-savvy downloader I would really doubt. The interwebs move far too fast.
    The only result of their tactics that I've seen, is that file sharing has only become more entrenched and impossible to stop. Think about it. We started with napster. With napster, all you had to do was shut down their servers, then *poof* gone. Next up, kazaa, limewire, and the like. Now, while (if they're not based in romania or something), there's no longer a central server. This means you can sue the company to oblivion and get the software taken down, but the network still works, so you just have to let it slowly die out. Next up, Bittorrent. Now there's a set protocol, anyone can make an application that'll use it, but it still requires (easy to setup) servers to orchestrate it. The future? Well....they've made it so you don't need that base level server with millions of entries to find files anymore, there's ways to run it off your home computer, which pretty much eliminates "easy targets" to take out. After that, they're coming out with further anonymized/encrypted versions to protect people even further......it's not feasible to stop.



    Music takes money to make. It takes time and thought and heart and soul and energy. Musicians who are just starting out are working crappy day jobs and spending all their hard-earned cash to buy equipment and studio time and rehearsal spaces and recording software and who knows what else, all to make this commodity called music. None of this is free. How does a band make a living through their music, or even recoup the costs of said music, if you're not even willing to pay 99 cents or even 79 cents per song for it? If you just expect it for free? Culture don't pay the rent, folks. And it certainly doesn't facilitate making MORE music for you to consume.
    Well, to be honest....musicians make so little money off their CD sales, that it's pretty much irrelevant to them if you buy it or not. *shocking news* Most musicians hate the RIAA and the big record companies as much as today's generation do. (and actually, a large number of them have come out strongly against the lawsuits of their customers). Artists make almost all of their money off concerts and merchandise.


    I do think that the record companies seriously missed the boat, misread the signs, and are scrambling to catch up. But it does seem a bit ridiculous to me that so many folks are unwilling to buy music at all these days. I think there are a lot of people out there that are just used to getting it for free, and won't stop getting it for free unless there are measures to stop them. It might get ugly before it evens out.
    I'm not unwilling to buy music, I buy it from certain artists who really produce something I like and listen to a lot (and only ones who are independent, I'm not giving a cent to anyone affiliated with the RIAA).

    Also, as an interesting note to Tallulah, as proof of what I mean, in Sweden, the Pirate Party just got an EU Parliament seat, because so much of the youth turned out in support of them, and polls have support for them continuing to rise, they went from 0.5% of the public to 7% in two months. That's not nothing. That's hundreds of thousands of voters or more. (their only goal is overhaul of copyright/pro filesharing)
    I-95%, S-84%, T-89%, P-84%

  8. #88
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    You own it now. The artist didn't throw a CD at you and then hold out his hand. You didn't listen to it on the radio and decide you didn't want to buy it. You acquired it, you own it, it's on your computer and possibly your iPod. You own it, so it's not unreasonable for that artist to expect compensation.
    I would disagree with the idea that I "own" music that I purchase, actually. I'm not allowed to share it with people so I can ask them what they think of it, or use it as an expression of my state of mind... they've got to buy their own. I only have the right to listen to it myself. What good is "having" music if I'm the only one that can listen to "my" music? What's really happening is that I'm purchasing a limited license to listen to the music myself. I dislike the restrictive personal use license I'm being asked to accept with commercial music.

    Software works the same way, but I think that's more justified by the fact that software is actually, well, USEFUL. Music isn't. The world wouldn't end if music disappeared altogether.

    Thus, I've realized I shouldn't be using something if I disagree with it. If I feel this way, I should simply avoid listening to commercial music. That'll cut me off from a lot of good songs, but integrity is worth it, I suppose.




    I think there are a lot of people out there that are just used to getting it for free, and won't stop getting it for free unless there are measures to stop them. It might get ugly before it evens out.
    This is the main thing I'm opposed to. I'm terrified of what kind of measures they might use. I'm specifically afraid of them putting in place an infrastructure that can completely control and stabilize what's available on the Internet to fall in line with what's accepted within a certain belief or legal system. Don't you see how badly such a system could be abused? The free illegal music is an issue, but I don't see how it gives them the right to implement a system like that.

    If anything, I'd rather they just go ahead and give people jail time (maybe a year) for downloading the music if caught, put out rewards for turning in downloaders, and try harder to catch them, than compromise the Internet in that way. I bet spending a year in jail, or seeing your downloader friends get sent to jail for a year, would be quite a deterrent. Granted, it would be unfair, but at this point they might have to punish far above the severity of the crime in order to reestablish the sense of it being wrong.

  9. #89
    wholly charmed Spartacuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    677

    Default

    I give property I buy to friends, family and complete strangers all the time. Books, songs and gently-worn clothing. Assuming they mean serious business with the heavy-handed, $2M approach to blocking file sharing, I'd like to see what measures and pretext they come up with next to distinguish this gift from the rest and prosecute its transmission.
    Ti (43); Ne (41.8); Te (33.7); Fi (30.5); Ni (27.5); Se (24.7); Si (21.5); Fe (17.3)
    The More You Know the Less You Need. - Aboriginal Saying

  10. #90
    Senior Member avolkiteshvara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    YaYa
    Posts
    895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    But it does seem a bit ridiculous to me that so many folks are unwilling to buy music at all these days. I think there are a lot of people out there that are just used to getting it for free, and won't stop getting it for free unless there are measures to stop them. It might get ugly before it evens out.
    Sounds like you are talking about the ethics of downloading. I am talking about pragmatics. Talking about lazy old white guys that were used to siphoning off the rewards of true talent for decades.

    A new paradigm needs to occur in order to make $ off music again.

    - Does this mean record companies will be cut out........like Radiohead is doing? Maybe.

    -What about attaching a certain % of sales to your charity of choice?

    -What about getting 5 new upcoming artists with each download you pay for.

    -What about finding some way of distributing that will get it quicker more conveniently to you......less steps to the downloading process.

    -What about record companies getting into the Ipod business and inventing something better.

    -Every 10 songs gets you a free T-shirt or something.

    -Every 10 songs gets you entered into a contest to party with the band.

    New distribution. New quality. New thoughts. Things will never go back to what they were.

    Is it moral? Who fucking knows. I'd have to refer to philosophical ethics of decision making, stakeholders, and magnitude/proximity of stakeholders. You're an INTP. You should be able to argue both sides.

    Edit:

    After further thought, the record companies need to hook up with NPR/PRI management. They need to learn to get consumers to pay for something that they can already get for free.

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