Falling music listening demographic
leebert
Blame file sharing for the flagging fortunes of the Recording Industry
? Not according to the US Census ( see attached, from a USA Today
graphic ). American music listening habits have fallen by 33% since
1999.
Ummm, gee, could the music-listening demographic be just plain burned
out by the same-old same-old? Maybe we should blame the repetitive and
sometimes revulsive "artists" turning people off from pop music along
with the music labels that can't seem to discover & produce a
marketable volume of good or intelligent performers anymore?
"But sales are slipping
and no one will say why.
Maybe you just put
one too many
crappy records?
MTV, Get off the Air!
Now!" -- Dead Kennedys
/lee
leebert
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=htfxpi
Blame file sharing for the flagging fortunes of the Recording Industry
? Not according to the US Census ( see attached, from a USA Today
graphic ). American music listening habits have fallen by 33% since
1999.
Ummm, gee, could the music-listening demographic be just plain burned
out by the same-old same-old? Maybe we could blame the repetitive and
Daryl
leeber...@yahoo.com says...
That's exactly it. Music piracy is just executives covering their
asses, not a real source of lost revenue, IMO. In fact I think it
likely that downloading and burning have helped keep sales higher
by acting as a promotional vehicle supplementing radio.
--
Daryl
Wilson
"Daryl" <nos...@phoney.address> wrote ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/18/ucla_to_mpaa_shill_a.html
UCLA to MPAA shill: ARRRRRRR!
The MPAA's Dan Glickman went to UCLA to "educate" them
about how bad piracy is. He got met with hard questions about his
industry's campaign against its customers, then he was catcalled by
students, including one who showed up wearing a pirate eyepatch
(!).
"Arrrrrrr!" shouted a group of students in the front row,
prompting a chorus of pirate-like catcalls in the vein of Johnny
Depp... Several of the students said the government should be
focusing on eliminating poverty and improving education instead of
jailing kids who download movies, music and software. One young
man wore a patch over one eye, pirate-style.
Kirsten Bayes
> http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/18/ucla_to_mpaa_shill_a.html
>
> UCLA to MPAA shill: ARRRRRRR!
>
> The MPAA's Dan Glickman went to UCLA to "educate" them
> about how bad piracy is. He got met with hard questions about his
> industry's campaign against its customers, then he was catcalled by
> students, including one who showed up wearing a pirate eyepatch
> (!).
>
> "Arrrrrrr!" shouted a group of students in the front row,
> prompting a chorus of pirate-like catcalls in the vein of Johnny
> Depp... Several of the students said the government should be
> focusing on eliminating poverty and improving education instead of
> jailing kids who download movies, music and software. One young
> man wore a patch over one eye, pirate-style.
The story brought a tear to my eye - at least the one which doesn't have
a patch over it.
Best wishes
Kirsten
--
http://www.bayes.org.uk
Kirsten Bayes
> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=htfxpi
>
> Blame file sharing for the flagging fortunes of the Recording Industry
> ? Not according to the US Census ( see attached, from a USA Today
> graphic ). American music listening habits have fallen by 33% since
> 1999.
>
One of the reasons I oppose file sharing is that what is shared is the
crap stuff. Try finding Thomas Beecham's Carmen or La Regle du Jeu; what
you get is Kanye West and Star Wars Episode III.
lee
Funny thing is over here we have a video rental store chain called Block
Buster Videos -- their inventory is always the big action & romance &
horrors & latest and newest and they are bleeding market, their stocks
are in the dumps & they have a perrenial shareholder crisis meeting.
They rent what they think'll attract renters but most of the hot-new
stuff is eminently & imminently forgettable so most of their stock has a
short shelf life & the spoilage bins are full of junk. -- more like Lack
Luster Videos --
Ask them if they can look up their inventory & xfer the vid u want from
another store or corporate central & the deer in the headlights says
they're not set up for it.
The locally-owned cult-vid shoppes OTOH at least carry a watchable
stock. So does netflix.
/lee
Wilson
Netflux is great. Just about the only broadcast TV I watch
anymore is the news and Southpark. Everything else I want
to see I get on DVD.
Dave K
I find a lot of old jazz stuff I can't get (buy) anywhere else. But
the classical stuff is harder to come buy. Thankfully there's good and
cheap Naxos!
Lazarhat
news:113299387...@despina.uk.clara.net:
Agreed. Until the owners of those types of rarities and other lost gems
get online, people are wasting their time bittorrenting and such. As it
pertains to music, the recording industry needs to suck it up and allow
consumers to trade in old, already paid for forms of media for newer
types. Until they learn this, people who bought a Sex Pistols Album back
in the late 70s will continue to feel justified in stealing .mp3s of the
old song they feel they 'own' because of that previous purchase.
Others who just P2P on itellectual property that isn't PD or OS or GPL or
that they don't 'own', are just thieves plain and simple. If you don't
give some form of renumeration to artists for their work, then no one
will want to be an artist. They're human beings too, and an occaisional
sandwich once in a while might be nice.
Giggles Like a Girl
Oh this is great logic. If you put cheese in a mousetrap and
the mouse takes it without getting caught in the trap, you
say the mouse "stole" the cheese. The mouse becomes a thief
plain and simple.
We need a definition of "theft" that makes sense here. How
about "taking that which is not given"?
I'd submit that there is no "that" which is taken in a
download, because "that" is merely the value of a transaction
that wasn't going to happen anyway. That someone downloads
does not mean that they would have paid if they couldn't
have downloaded.
Given this I would say that downloaders are therefore
committing regulatory offences not property crimes, and that
this means that they are not "thieves" even though they are
criminals. Their acts are offences against the public
welfare, not against the artists.
I'd also submit that no artist has ever been deprived of
a sandwich as a consequence of downloading. The law needs
to be enforced on principle but the rationale for any
particular level of enforcement has to be based on the
needs of society, not theoretical sandwich losses.
I might feel differently if I were an artist, but I doubt
it. I think I'd be glad that people were "stealing" my
cheese rather than ignoring it altogether.
--
Daryl ->>---> Brain Strike! No mentation without compensation!
To email me add dawt see eh.
Kirsten Bayes
>
> Agreed. Until the owners of those types of rarities and other lost gems
> get online, people are wasting their time bittorrenting and such. As it
> pertains to music, the recording industry needs to suck it up and allow
> consumers to trade in old, already paid for forms of media for newer
> types. Until they learn this, people who bought a Sex Pistols Album back
> in the late 70s will continue to feel justified in stealing .mp3s of the
> old song they feel they 'own' because of that previous purchase.
>
> Others who just P2P on itellectual property that isn't PD or OS or GPL or
> that they don't 'own', are just thieves plain and simple. If you don't
> give some form of renumeration to artists for their work, then no one
> will want to be an artist. They're human beings too, and an occaisional
> sandwich once in a while might be nice.
My view is if I own the vinyl album or the CD or DVD, I bought the
rights to play the content for my use on whatever player is available.
I didn't buy the rights to share it with others.
There is also so much free, good stuff which needs to be shared. I have
bought a few "honorware" downloadable e-books from Bartleby and they are
great. I get Jane Austen to read on my handheld, they get a bit of cash
to keep the site online, Jane gets a readership and nobody gets ripped
off. As we say in England, "sorted".
Dave K
This is the most sensible thing I have ever heard on this topic. My
problem with the word "theft" is that data is such a strange thing. I
can take your data and you can still have it. In no other instance of
theft does that occur. Not with money or property or food or even
patents. If I claim a patent on something you have invented I have
taken something away from you. Only in the world of data or media
transfer does it happen that I can can get exactly what you have
without you losing it. The only thing in question is whether the
artist loses anything, and so far there hasn't been any data to show
this is true. But it is as you say a regulatory offence. One which I
have commited, granted the artists could care less in their current
state. (Er, that's "dead")
Lazarhat
news:8d198$438959f6$4038ecbe$12...@PRIMUS.CA:
You and I have had this discussion before. Thinking+manufacturing
costs=get paid. Our band put five songs from our twelve song CD on the
net for download (as .mp3s). Full versions at 192Mhz sampling. No charge.
Back then, considering the time and money it took to release these songs,
I would have been peeved if someone had ripped the other 7 songs and
distributed them widely over the net.
We didn't get rich. That wasn't the point. We realized there was more
value in promotion. Lots were given away to local radio stations, close
friends and family (although even band members agreed to pay $5 each to
cover mfg. costs) and especially to bar owners (for the jukebox) and
festival promoters for bookings. But I made every CD by hand, including
an 8 page lyrics book in color. Paid for it all out of my own pocket. We
released the first batch signed and numbered, mostly for friends of the
band. At our gigs we charged $8 or two CDs for $15. We sold wholesale to
record stores for $5 and asked them not to charge more than $12.99 for
it. All complied with our wishes.
So basically, since it was costing me between $3 and $5 per CD to
manufacture, we weren't making diddly for the so-called 'art', we just
didn't want to lose our asses on mfg. costs. And by we, I'm using the
'royal we', because I really mean me.... 'we' realized that primarily the
'livelihood' part of being a musician was the performance aspect of the
'art', not the CD. DUH! But as a musician, it costs gas money to drive to
a gig 800 miles away (Anchorage to Skagway there and back -- so actually
800x2) or 300 miles away (Homer and back or Fairbanks and back so 300x2).
I'm not independently wealthy! I was a working artist, bub.
Call me wacky, but not all artists can be starving artists because they'd
eventually die of starvation. If one sees or hears something they like,
it's ok to reward the artist for their work. I own an abstract painting
by a friend that I paid way too much money for because I liked it
visually and I liked her personally and wanted to support her 'muse' so
she could do more.
Let me give a more current example:
Would you make a copy of Trinlay's recent posters that she had up on eBay
and spread them around the net for free thus depriving her of a
livelihood by your situational ethics? Let's hope not. You know her, so
you'd hopefully feel guilty. I know I would never do that to a friend.
I'd be horrified if someone did it to me! So why would it be any
different with someone you may not know? They're just as human as
Trin....
Or how about this-
What if some asshat took an archive of all your absfg posts and used your
ideas to make a million dollars by writing a book or a sitcom or whatnot?
Without ever crediting you or paying you? Or maybe take your gurning
picture and use it without your permission to promote SpikeTV? Certainly
your masterful (and award winning, I might add) gurn was worth something
to you when you turned them down. Am I hitting a little close to home so
that you can understand how an artist might feel over pirated
intellectual property? Are you getting a better idea of how I feel about
artistic thievery or do I have to pirate and send you the complete Dead
Can Dance collection to prove my point?
Oh you'd like that wouldn't you! ;p
Sanford Manley
>
> What if some asshat took an archive of all your absfg posts and used your
> ideas to make a million dollars by writing a book or a sitcom or whatnot?
> Without ever crediting you or paying you? Or maybe take your gurning
> picture and use it without your permission to promote SpikeTV? Certainly
> your masterful (and award winning, I might add) gurn was worth something
> to you when you turned them down. Am I hitting a little close to home so
> that you can understand how an artist might feel over pirated
> intellectual property? Are you getting a better idea of how I feel about
> artistic thievery or do I have to pirate and send you the complete Dead
> Can Dance collection to prove my point?
>
> Oh you'd like that wouldn't you! ;p
Hasn't this already happened? ABSFG is systematically
looted for its humor...I just wan't a little piece of the
pie...then I can feed it to the evil clown that lives under
my bed.
--
Sanford M. Manley
The boys throw rocks at the frogs in jest.
But the frogs die in earnest.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Donald Shepherd
... If you don't
> give some form of renumeration to artists for their work, then no one
> will want to be an artist. They're human beings too, and an occaisional
> sandwich once in a while might be nice.
The earliest musical instruments found so far are bone flutes
(pentatonically tuned) from about 30,000 years ago. The earliest money
dates back only to about nine thousand years ago. Humans have been
making music a lot longer than they have been making money. Artists
don't need remuneration to make music. Indeed, money usually corrupts
art.
It is a problem of our society that so few people feel free to pursue
their intrests without concern for compensation. Some people even feel
that thinking needs to be compensated. Soon people will demand to be
compensated for scratching their ass.
Don
"No gluteal digitation without compensation!"
Lazarhat
Isn't Austen public domain by now? Go to Project Gutenberg and download
the free text for stuff like that. I've done it for Joyce.
Luke Clossey
I get a salary, so it's not like I depend on writing for sustinence, but
I'd have no problem if someone stole my "intellectual property" with a
photocopier, or copied out a stream of 1's and 0's that symbolically
represent my ideas. Commercial use is different, and so is plagiarism.
It would be icky if a Spike TV exec used it on the air to make money, or
if he claimed it was actually himself gurning. But he should be able to
download the gurn, blow it up to the size of an official royal portrait,
and have it framed and hanging over the fireplace. Heh, he should be
required even. :)
Luke
Kirsten Bayes
>
> Hasn't this already happened? ABSFG is systematically
> looted for its humor...I just wan't a little piece of the
> pie...then I can feed it to the evil clown that lives under
> my bed.
>
Absfg is the essential comedy, news, environmental, Mexican food
channel. If you want to learn the rules of "devils fingers" what other
resource is there?
Kirsten Bayes
>>My view is if I own the vinyl album or the CD or DVD, I bought the
>>rights to play the content for my use on whatever player is available.
>>I didn't buy the rights to share it with others.
>>
>>There is also so much free, good stuff which needs to be shared. I
>>have bought a few "honorware" downloadable e-books from Bartleby and
>>they are great. I get Jane Austen to read on my handheld, they get a
>>bit of cash to keep the site online, Jane gets a readership and nobody
>>gets ripped off. As we say in England, "sorted".
>>
>>Best wishes
>>Kirsten
>
>
> Isn't Austen public domain by now? Go to Project Gutenberg and download
> the free text for stuff like that. I've done it for Joyce.
She is, yes: the "honorware" just covers the cost and convenience of the
eBook conversion. I've got a bunch of plain texts as well, but eBook
gives you a bit more control and navigation. I'll cross their palms with
a bit of silver to keep the site up.
Giggles Like a Girl
Well, we can rationalise or apply "situational ethics" as we
prefer but there's no denying that copying something you don't
have the right to copy is not proper. The rule I tend to apply
is that I never accept a copy just because I want to avoid
paying for something. I have two questionable videos on my
shelf. The first one I seriously did not know was a pirate
until after I got it home, and would not have bought it at all
if it weren't so cheep. The second was an obvious pirate but
I bought it out of curiosity more than anything and it is
something I had already paid to see once and will be buying
legally some day for sure. (I still get a giggle that I can
hear the audience laughing and coughing and such in it.) Any
music I've copied has been for convenience, like being able to
listen to it before the local store replenishes its stock so
I can buy it, or making my own mix discs or recording my
vinyl collection to disc.
Somewhere in the TTC there is a passage that says something
like "the superior man sees to his debts, the inferior man
sees to his exactions (his debt-collections)". I think it
applies nicely here.
Giggles Like a Girl
Heh, not really. I already have almost all of it in legal
form anyway.
You err if you think my post means "it's okay to pirate
rather than pay for." I don't think it is. You have chosen
very narrow examples to try to demonstrate that it is "theft"
not merely "offence against the public good" as I have argued,
and I don't think that you have succeeded.
There are remedies available to you and I and Trin if we feel
our work has been "stolen". I don't think there's anything in
the downloading phenomenon that indicates any need for
extraordinary public measures -- remedies much beyond the
existing ones. I'm not arguing for the elimination of
copyright laws or the cessation of prosecution of those who
make a business of depriving producers and distributors fair
exclusive access to the market. I'm arguing against giving
the bleating of the industry more attention than it deserves
based on the industry's specious accounting method of adding
up the retail value of every item that is illegally downloaded
then treating it as if it were all made-to-order product
stolen from a warehouse. When the industry wants to talk
about real losses not fictional ones then I will be more than
ready to listen. (I deeply suspect that the industry cannot
do that because downloading in fact *increases* its sales by
providing more exposure for artists than they would otherwise
get...a kind of 'try before you buy' program.)
To give you an example of the extraordinary measures I'm
talking about, we pay an extra tax on blank media up here,
money that is given to "the industry" to help compensate it
for losses due to piracy. I'm dead against that. Another
example would be industry attempts to gain the right to
evidence-collection methods that target individuals and
abrogate their privacy. "Tough shit boys" is all I have to
say to that.
Note, I've yet to apply "situational ethics" in this. In no
case have I argued that it is justified to acquire music
without paying the artist his asking price. I've merely said
that it is not "theft" and should not be considered as such
for the sake of public policy. I think I could take a stab
at situational ethics with the mass-production high-promotion
goop that the industry targets our children with, but I'm on
strike at present so forget it.
Giggles Like a Girl
Indeed, he should even prostrate to it!
Lazarhat
news:1133101637....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The point is livelihood, Don. Certainly you don't work for free do you?
The problem with being a musician or artist is that people think that
there is great joy in it's production and undoubtedly there is -- I can
attest to that from personal experience.
However it was NOT some rolling circus freak rock show with hot and cold
running groupies and endless supplies of green m&m's and limitless
bottles of Jack Daniels. It was work. Hard, sweaty work. Sometimes six to
eight hours a night not counting the time it took to drive to gigs.
People don't think of it as work. They think it's all fun. I'm here to
tell everyone it isn't fun driving 300 miles AFTER working an 8 to 10
hour shift at your day job then haul, set up and play a half-ton of drums
HARD for another 6 to 8 hours. The 'fun' part was when the music started
and for the most part the fun ended when the music was over. But with the
fun was also a considerable amount of work ethic if you were
professional, and I was. I took it seriously and didn't drink or party
while I was working. It wasn't just a hobby. It was my second job that
just happened, because of circumstances, to be more fun and creative than
my day job. Then afterwards you had to load up all those drums, drive 300
miles back home and go to work at your day job Monday morning.
So I don't think it was unreasonable for us to ask to get paid for that
level of professionalism and that amount of work. Judging from over a
decade of successful bookings within the state I'd say the people who
paid us to play felt we were worth it otherwise they wouldn't have asked
us or agreed to pay us.
Lastly I'm not buying your argument that art is corrupted by getting paid
for it. Even friggin' Mozart was supported monitarily by his patrons. If
he hadn't been he would have died even sooner than he did and an
incredible talent would have been wasted, never to be appreciated by the
great 'unwashed masses' let alone Archdukes and the rest of the royalty
of Europe. While I'm certainly no Mozart, I do have an idea that my
talent had some value because of all those years people were willing to
support our band and pay us for playing what was mostly our original
music -- a feat that has never been accomplished by many other bands in
Alaska.
Lazarhat
Understood. You're paying for a value added service. Whereas I just
convert the text files from PG to a format that works on my PSP by using
a freeware program and then read it on the PSP (not that that makes me a
geek or anything).
The software I use prints text files to an image file format that
automatically formats to the screen size of my PSP.... to read you load
the first image then use the left and right top shoulder buttons to page
back and forth. The loading is instantaneous, so it's just like turning
pages on a book only better since I don't have to hold it open to read.
Sort of ebook-ish only with no search or annotation features. But it does
work great for reading.
If I wanted to I could just use the built-in web browser and read it off
their site directly, but that doesn't work offline.
You could probably do much the same on a PC or Mac using Acrobat to
publish to ebook format from the raw text files, but perhaps the
subscription method is more cost effective for your purposes.
Lazarhat
Then I misunderstood and stand (or in this case, sit) corrected. I think
the same thing happened last time we had this discussion.
>
> There are remedies available to you and I and Trin if we feel
> our work has been "stolen". I don't think there's anything in
> the downloading phenomenon that indicates any need for
> extraordinary public measures -- remedies much beyond the
> existing ones. I'm not arguing for the elimination of
> copyright laws or the cessation of prosecution of those who
> make a business of depriving producers and distributors fair
> exclusive access to the market. I'm arguing against giving
> the bleating of the industry more attention than it deserves
> based on the industry's specious accounting method of adding
> up the retail value of every item that is illegally downloaded
> then treating it as if it were all made-to-order product
> stolen from a warehouse. When the industry wants to talk
> about real losses not fictional ones then I will be more than
> ready to listen. (I deeply suspect that the industry cannot
> do that because downloading in fact *increases* its sales by
> providing more exposure for artists than they would otherwise
> get...a kind of 'try before you buy' program.)
No arguments here. I'd prefer to see a model where the majority of the
proceeds goes directly to the artist and not producers or distributors.
Especially distributors since delivery of the 'product' can be
accomplished for pennies on the dollar in a broadband enabled world
market.
>
> To give you an example of the extraordinary measures I'm
> talking about, we pay an extra tax on blank media up here,
> money that is given to "the industry" to help compensate it
> for losses due to piracy. I'm dead against that. Another
> example would be industry attempts to gain the right to
> evidence-collection methods that target individuals and
> abrogate their privacy. "Tough shit boys" is all I have to
> say to that.
Again, no argument. The same tax happened on video tapes back in the day
and was the product of industry lobbying. Same for privacy invasion. It
is an industry driven phenomenon that some gullible politicians have
enabled to continue because corporate constituents seem to carry more
weight to them than do their individual constituents. The way to battle
this is by supporting EFF or communicating directly with elected
representatives concerning these matters.
>
> Note, I've yet to apply "situational ethics" in this. In no
> case have I argued that it is justified to acquire music
> without paying the artist his asking price. I've merely said
> that it is not "theft" and should not be considered as such
> for the sake of public policy. I think I could take a stab
> at situational ethics with the mass-production high-promotion
> goop that the industry targets our children with, but I'm on
> strike at present so forget it.
>
Well I certainly wouldn't wish to goad you into any actul unrenumerated
thinking, but you've yet to convince me that P2P music sharing isn't
anything other than outright theft of intellectual property.
There's another model that has been suggested, one wherein if you store
certain rarities on your own hard drive you get paid a small amount as
part of a functioning distribution chain when another P2P user downloads
it from you. I believe that model has the most promise but it will be
hard to convince the content producers to loosen their stranglehold on
that distribution pipeline since that is where they make most of their
bread and butter AND it is where they can exert the most control over
their artists under contract (for example, Sony refusing for two years to
release Fiona Apple's "Extraordinary Machine" CD because they didn't
think any of the songs were 'commercial enough' to make the CD a hit and
thus allow them to maximize their profit on their artist investment and
development).
So basically we're not disagreeing on much other than terminology or
perhaps methodology.
Donald Shepherd
Lazar dearest,
The point I was making was to refute your specific statement, "If you
don't give some form of renumeration to artists for their work, then no
one will want to be an artist." Balderdash!!! For at least twenty-one
thousand years musicians made music before remuneration was even
invented.
I do not contest your point that working musicians deserve to be paid.
I did some roadie work back in my day and usually each hour of music
took two hours of travel and two hours of humping B3s in and out of
cellar clubs, etc. (Pennsylvania doesn't have as many miles between
gigs.) But we didn't do it for money, we did it for drugs. And
teeny-bopper sluts :)
As to art getting corrupted by money, consider top 40 radio. In dollar
volume OR in total copies, it is the undisputed majority, and it is
nothing but pure focus-grouped money-grubbing corruption. What don't
you buy about that statement? That's why I said "usually". The artists
that intrest you and me are the ones in the minority, economically
speaking.
The main gripe of my post was the fact that in so many fields of human
endeavor making the effort required to excel requires making it your
day job. In athletics, art, politics, science, etc. getting serious
requires going pro. This raises the cost of integrity, be it artistic,
political, or whatever. Little Suzie's Health Care outweighs the duty
to stand on principle. The Bastards That Own Our World have us where
they want us.
Don
bonfils
> The earliest musical instruments found so far are bone flutes
> (pentatonically tuned) from about 30,000 years ago. The earliest money
> dates back only to about nine thousand years ago. Humans have been
> making music a lot longer than they have been making money. Artists
> don't need remuneration to make music.
No. Just to make *good* music.
Art takes time. Lot and lots of time. Money means you can spend *all* your
time making music, instead of fiddling about for a few hours after work.
> Indeed, money usually corrupts
> art.
No - bad artists corrupt art.
If an artist doesn't have balls, sure, he will roll over and drool at the
mere thought of filthy lucre.
But an artist with *any* hint of integrity will use the financial
independence to realize his personal vision.
--
bonfils
http://kim.bonfils.com
Dave K
Well, shit, I can't argue with anything you've just said.. And I'd
really like to argue... Now I just feel like an awful person. Thanks a
bunch!
I'll just crawl back into my situational ethics hole.
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote in
>> Note, I've yet to apply "situational ethics" in this. In no
>> case have I argued that it is justified to acquire music
>> without paying the artist his asking price. I've merely said
>> that it is not "theft" and should not be considered as such
>> for the sake of public policy. I think I could take a stab
>> at situational ethics with the mass-production high-promotion
>> goop that the industry targets our children with, but I'm on
>> strike at present so forget it.
>>
>
>Well I certainly wouldn't wish to goad you into any actul unrenumerated
>thinking, but you've yet to convince me that P2P music sharing isn't
>anything other than outright theft of intellectual property.
Okay. If I ever attempt to do that then I think I'll
probably start out disagreeing with the notion that
intellectual property is in fact property.
>There's another model that has been suggested, one wherein if you store
>certain rarities on your own hard drive you get paid a small amount as
>part of a functioning distribution chain when another P2P user downloads
>it from you. I believe that model has the most promise but it will be
>hard to convince the content producers to loosen their stranglehold on
>that distribution pipeline since that is where they make most of their
>bread and butter AND it is where they can exert the most control over
>their artists under contract (for example, Sony refusing for two years to
>release Fiona Apple's "Extraordinary Machine" CD because they didn't
>think any of the songs were 'commercial enough' to make the CD a hit and
>thus allow them to maximize their profit on their artist investment and
>development).
The reason we as a society even recognise intellectual works as
property is that we wish to promote their production. The above
is an example of the property right undermining the purpose of
society in granting that recognition in the first place. I find
that interesting.
>So basically we're not disagreeing on much other than terminology or
>perhaps methodology.
True, but I forgot how fricking sensitive you artists are! ;) I,
fortunately, am blessed with tone-deafness and no sense of rhythm.
Unlike #2 son, who we just had parent-teacher night for. To our
surprise his teachers consider him a genius who just isn't trying,
not an ADD-case who is struggling just to stay focussed. Both are
true but they only see the genius. He has taken guitar in music
class this semester. Last night, trying to get him to complete
his homework assignment, I am sitting with my little Casio
keyboard. I have it out because he is learning Greensleeves,
which I happen to be able to play by heart, and we are trying to
settle whether a note should be F or F#. (turns out even music
sheets disagree) Later he is trying to show me another tune he
learned, and I am trying to mimic it by ear. I'm not doing well
so he leans over my keyboard and plunks it out for me so I can
see it played right. After he's done T says to me "you realise
he did that with the keyboard upside down." I did. The little
bastid!
To top it off his history teacher informed us that he has a
photographic memory. I knew it was good but I didn't realise it
was that good. She noticed that all he has to do is read
something and he remembers everything in it. I, on the other
hand, am not even able to remember *that* I read it most of the
time.
SO I am thinking I will send him to music camp at Acadia next
year, and maybe I will take the sound engineering camp so that
I can at least be his recording engineer when he gets famous.
http://conted.acadiau.ca/esyp/music/index.html
Giggles Like a Girl
Hee hee!
Oddly enough it always seems to be the musicians I know who
have the largest pirate music collections. I guess they
figure they are covered by "fair use" since to them it's
"for research".
Giggles Like a Girl
wrote:
Okay, now I'm lost. Is this discussion about music or about art?
<ducks and runs away...>
Dave K
Yeah, it's been great for Jazz. The best way to get your mind around
any jazz standard is to listen to as many different versions as
possible. I have whole CDs burned that just have one song on them
performed by 7 or 8 different performers or groups. I have a "stella
by starlight" CD, an "all the things you are" CD, etc.
Like the commercials say "Why pay $10,000 to BUY all these albums, when
you can get them on one great collection for just..." well, free in
this case. Like I said though, much of it I can't find on CDs anyway,
some of it could be bootlegged stuff so it was already illegal before I
got my hands on it (how's that for an excuse?).. And heck, there may
even be a percentage of my downloaded music that is actually legal.
I'm still an awful, awful person.
-DaveK
Donald Shepherd
> "Donald Shepherd" <don...@nauticom.net>
>
> > The earliest musical instruments found so far are bone flutes
> > (pentatonically tuned) from about 30,000 years ago. The earliest money
> > dates back only to about nine thousand years ago. Humans have been
> > making music a lot longer than they have been making money. Artists
> > don't need remuneration to make music.
>
> No. Just to make *good* music.
Which definition of "good" music are you using? Would none of it be
made without money? How much "good" music does society "need"?
> Art takes time. Lot and lots of time. Money means you can spend *all* your
> time making music, instead of fiddling about for a few hours after work.
>
> > Indeed, money usually corrupts
> > art.
>
> No - bad artists corrupt art.
> If an artist doesn't have balls, sure, he will roll over and drool at the
> mere thought of filthy lucre.
> But an artist with *any* hint of integrity will use the financial
> independence to realize his personal vision.
Financial independence? Who has that? If you do you are distinctly in
the minority and you may no longer have the perspective to judge those
who don't. After all, integrity also includes responsibly providing for
your family:
Q. What's the difference between a musician and a large pizza?
A. A large pizza can feed a family of four.
First things first.
>
> --
> bonfils
> http://kim.bonfils.com
I think I should take some time and express my thoughts on the whole
subject of "Intellectual Property". As an Analog Circuit Designer I've
come up with several original ideas that solved problems that my
employers had. Usually, the major part of the work was building my
understanding of the problem. Once that was done, the solution became
obvious. Although some of my ideas were patented, our company chose not
to defend them when competitors copied them. I agreed with them. The
original problem was had by everyone in the industry. I see no right
for me to be the only person in the world allowed to understand the
problem nor do I see any right for me to be the only person allowed to
apply an obvious solution to it. It would be extremely presumptuous of
me to think that I was the only person in the whole wide world capable
of solving that problem that way.
The usual argument I hear is that if you allow free copying of ideas
then nobody will have any incentive to create new ones. Balderdash!, I
say. If your idea is a loser nobody will want to copy it anyway and if
it's a winner the first one to make money from it will be you. You just
have to be ready to exploit your idea before the rest of the industry
can respond.
Now I realize that ripping free downloads of an artist's work is a
whole different matter from what I just described but that problem is
not the ripping, it's the whole business model of the recording
industry. There, artists have to put in a great deal of effort and kiss
a lot of ass to get the right to be distributed and promoted by a major
label, which they hope will put them on Easy Street for life. Free
downloads hit the business model in the back end, where the artist's
payback is supposed to be. If a song is big enough that it's being
downloaded enough to hurt anyone the recording company has already made
its money and only the artist is screwed.
Don
Lazarhat
Which are alternative forms of renumeration, Don. Which is probably what
artists did BEFORE money was invented, Don. They bartered and traded for
their talent and services.
My point is that professional artists don't do it without any motivation
whatsoever. If there is nothing there to motivate them, be it drugs,
groupies or money -- if there is no payoff or no reward, then they do not
remain artists and future generations are discouraged from following the
same path. Artists don't exist on satisfaction alone, Don. Nor can they
survive on it. Except for that freak Christo! Heh. Kidding.
>
> As to art getting corrupted by money, consider top 40 radio. In dollar
> volume OR in total copies, it is the undisputed majority, and it is
> nothing but pure focus-grouped money-grubbing corruption. What don't
> you buy about that statement? That's why I said "usually". The artists
> that intrest you and me are the ones in the minority, economically
> speaking.
With the exception of Talk radio, radio is a dead medium. Radio is
corrupt because of all the middle men in the distribution chain. That
model is changing as the distribution method switches more and more to
broadband distribution, placing more of the power to control their own
content distribution and artistic freedom back in the hands of the
artists themselves. I've worked longer as an announcer in professional
rock oriented radio than as a musician so I've had the benefit of seeing
both sides. Being a DJ used to entail a certain amount of artistic
freedom and creativity, now it does not. Which is why I quit. If you want
that sort of freedom now, you have to be a club DJ.
Let me give you an example. A few years ago I used to listen to the local
rap station. Eminem released an album and they started playing one or two
songs from it EVERY HOUR! I'm not a big fan of his but I don't hate him
like I would, say, Ricky Martin or Air Supply. While waiting for a bus
one day, I ran into that rap station's music director and a bunch of
their other DJs doing some sad assed promotional event. I introduced
myself, said I used to be a music director in radio and stated that I
thought they shouldn't be playing the same songs over and over again
every hour. I expressed the idea that if their listeners could hear the
most popular songs from that CD every hour on their radio station then
they had no reason to go out and buy the friggin' CD.... which works at
cross purposes for the record label looking to push that same product out
the door of music stores. He disagreed, but in the end, I was right. The
station no longer exists. It was replaced by a format more controllable
by corporate entities -- one that doesn't have to rely on the bad
decisions of an inexperienced young punk music director -- one where the
music corporations themselves control the flow and format and make the
decisions over what gets played when, DIRECTLY. Thus, 'Jack' radio was
born.
According to the industry the most popular format is now 'Jack' which is
a genre blending format that uses pre-recorded automated announcers, just
like that nightmare episode of Jonny Fever on WKRP! It is no different
from you and me putting an .mp3 player on shuffle. There is no flow or
art in song mixing or mood and tempo between songs. There is no 'art'
unless it happens accidently. How much more marginalized can a medium be
than that? Why wouldn't people just tune out in droves and listen to the
music they like on their iPods and PSPs? The answer is that they have!
Which is why they've said music listenership is down overall. I would
argue that it isn't music listenership that's down but rather RADIO
listenership. All 'art' has been removed from the career path of music
radio announcers and there are less and less people choosing that as a
career because it just doesn't sustain them any longer -- artistically OR
financially. The only real money in radio is being a 'shock jock' like
Howard Stern and that's a different art form altogether.
So we don't disagree, we're just haggling over terminology and some
differing reasons for the premise of the subject line of this thread,
similar to what Daryl and I are doing.
>
> The main gripe of my post was the fact that in so many fields of human
> endeavor making the effort required to excel requires making it your
> day job. In athletics, art, politics, science, etc. getting serious
> requires going pro. This raises the cost of integrity, be it artistic,
> political, or whatever. Little Suzie's Health Care outweighs the duty
> to stand on principle. The Bastards That Own Our World have us where
> they want us.
>
> Don
>
>
I'd say it is shifting to the other direction radically as the means of
distribution is placed back into the hands of the artists. Consumers are
the beneficiaries. But not if they continue to steal the content. If no
one is willing to pay reasonable prices for content, then the content
providers will vanish and content itself dries up. Welcome to the
wonderful world of the commoditization of music as art, Don. Now the only
thing that can be done by the music artists to make their product stand
out is to offer QUALITY. The risk is that even if they do put out quality
product, people will continue to steal it, thus depriving them of a
livelihood and turning an entire industry into a vast wasteland where
only the Britanys and Justin Timberlakes (aka 'bad music') of the world
survive.
Lazarhat
news:438aacac$0$47074$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk:
> Subject: Re: Falling music listening demographic
> From: "bonfils" <k...@bonfils.your.underwear.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
Exactly. Concisely and artfully expressed, too.
I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!
< bowing at Kim's feet >
Giggles Like a Girl
You are! :)
I think this is where situational ethics comes in. You are
clearly not just getting your entertainment for free, so
screw it; enjoy and don't worry about it. Just be sure to
actually purchase any music that you would have purchased
anyway, and your conscience can be clear.
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>subject of "Intellectual Property". As an Analog Circuit Designer I've
Analog scary. Needs math. Digital good. Only needs logic.
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
wrote:
>
>"Daryl" <nos...@phoney.address> wrote ...
>>
>> In article <1132953498.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> leeber...@yahoo.com says...
>>>
>>>http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=htfxpi
>>>
>>>Blame file sharing for the flagging fortunes of the Recording Industry
>>>? Not according to the US Census ( see attached, from a USA Today
>>>graphic ). American music listening habits have fallen by 33% since
>>>1999.
>>>
>>>Ummm, gee, could the music-listening demographic be just plain burned
>>>out by the same-old same-old? Maybe we could blame the repetitive and
>>>sometimes revulsive "artists" turning people off from pop music along
>>>with the music labels that can't seem to discover & produce a
>>>marketable volume of good or intelligent performers anymore?
>>>
>>>"But sales are slipping
>>>and no one will say why.
>>>Maybe you just put
>>>one too many
>>>crappy records?
>>>
>>>MTV, Get off the Air!
>>>Now!" -- Dead Kennedys
>>
>> That's exactly it. Music piracy is just executives covering their
>> asses, not a real source of lost revenue, IMO. In fact I think it
>> likely that downloading and burning have helped keep sales higher
>> by acting as a promotional vehicle supplementing radio.
>
>
>http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/18/ucla_to_mpaa_shill_a.html
>
>UCLA to MPAA shill: ARRRRRRR!
>
>The MPAA's Dan Glickman went to UCLA to "educate" them
>about how bad piracy is. He got met with hard questions about his
>industry's campaign against its customers, then he was catcalled by
>students, including one who showed up wearing a pirate eyepatch
>(!).
>
> "Arrrrrrr!" shouted a group of students in the front row,
>prompting a chorus of pirate-like catcalls in the vein of Johnny
>Depp... Several of the students said the government should be
>focusing on eliminating poverty and improving education instead of
>jailing kids who download movies, music and software. One young
>man wore a patch over one eye, pirate-style.
>
>
I blame it on the parents.
I'm sure the MPAA would like to blame it on piracy, millions of people
stealing their wonderful product and not paying for it. If instead we
call it "word of mouth" things look a little different.
"Heard Madonna's new album?" (she does have a 'new' one)
"No"
"Here you go, have a listen."
"It's shit, sure not going to buy that, thanks."
That's the real problem, people are finding out their shit is shit
before they've blown their money on the shit and the entire industry
has always depended on hyping shit so much they can make their money
before people figure out it's shit but now people are finding out the
shit is shit 20% faster and save themselves from the shit.
Look at this years no blockbusters at least the hyped shit. People are
wising up and not going on the opening weekends to wait to hear from
those evil pirates or see for themselves if the shit is shit. As it
nearly always is shit they don't go to the theaters to see shit.
Add you own to this years very incomplete shit list.
Troy - SHIT!
War of the Worlds - SHIT!
Alexander - SHIT!
Doom - SHIT!
Bewitched - SHIT!
Fantastic Four - SHIT!
all the remakes - SHIT!
those few not remakes - SHIT!
Same with music, have you heard Eminem's new album?
Don't bother it's shit.
It's no wonder
I'm a one hook wonder
can this really work again
buddy can you spare a hook
The MPAA will say but everything is being "pirated" and who's to say
what's shit so it's all shit and it's up to them to say what's a
blockbuster by their hype budgets so they're being screwed..
But not true, take "March the Penguins", true they may say that's
shit, it's not even a real movie you can't even tell if its Pitt and
Jolie in penguin suits. That proves the point that people will go to
see even penguins shit when the demand to see it in the theaters comes
from the word of mouth of the pirates.
It's hard to think of other examples as good because the MPAA is
right, nearly everything they produce is shit.
That bastion of the free market and property rights the MPAA is simply
failing to adjust to the market and suffering the consequences.
The answer is simple, less shit.
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
<kir...@removplz.bayes.org.uk> wrote:
>leebert wrote:
>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=htfxpi
>>
>> Blame file sharing for the flagging fortunes of the Recording Industry
>> ? Not according to the US Census ( see attached, from a USA Today
>> graphic ). American music listening habits have fallen by 33% since
>> 1999.
>>
>
>One of the reasons I oppose file sharing is that what is shared is the
>crap stuff. Try finding Thomas Beecham's Carmen or La Regle du Jeu; what
>you get is Kanye West and Star Wars Episode III.
>
>Best wishes
>Kirsten
Tried googling "Thomas Beecham torrent" yet?
I guess it's up to someone with tastes like your's say perhaps you to
host the torrents then isn't it? Someone hasn't left a winning
powerball ticket around where I will stumble along and find it either,
the BASTARDS!
PS I notice Blair is wobbling on his campaign slogan
"If elected I promise to resign", he lied, what a surprise.
Thanks to pirates I did see Boris on HIGNFY .
Why you Brits can't do the sensible think and elect a comedian
as PM. Think of the fun of a Boris Bush summit. Seeing as we're going
to get fucked anyway might as well have a laugh along the way.
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
<lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com> wrote:
>Kirsten Bayes <kir...@removplz.bayes.org.uk> wrote in
>news:113299387...@despina.uk.clara.net:
>
>> leebert wrote:
>>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=htfxpi
>>>
>>> Blame file sharing for the flagging fortunes of the Recording Industry
>>> ? Not according to the US Census ( see attached, from a USA Today
>>> graphic ). American music listening habits have fallen by 33% since
>>> 1999.
>>>
>>
>> One of the reasons I oppose file sharing is that what is shared is the
>> crap stuff. Try finding Thomas Beecham's Carmen or La Regle du Jeu;
>what
>> you get is Kanye West and Star Wars Episode III.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Kirsten
>
>Agreed. Until the owners of those types of rarities and other lost gems
>get online, people are wasting their time bittorrenting and such. As it
>pertains to music, the recording industry needs to suck it up and allow
>consumers to trade in old, already paid for forms of media for newer
>types. Until they learn this, people who bought a Sex Pistols Album back
>in the late 70s will continue to feel justified in stealing .mp3s of the
>old song they feel they 'own' because of that previous purchase.
>
>Others who just P2P on itellectual property that isn't PD or OS or GPL or
>that they don't 'own', are just thieves plain and simple. If you don't
>give some form of renumeration to artists for their work, then no one
>will want to be an artist. They're human beings too, and an occaisional
>sandwich once in a while might be nice.
Nothing is simple.
Say you take your valuable work and throw it in the air and people
pick up the litter have they stolen from you? Current state of the law
says yes and you can sue them for your lose. Or by your own actions
have you taken your copyright and thrown it away into public domain.
Copyright was originally intended to apply to individuals for their
lifetime. As corporations are people that never die should their
copyright therefore never end and thereby end the concept of public
domain.
Right now as the law stands I can pick a dandelion off the grass,
decode it and run to the patent office and patent it. If you have my
dandelion now in your grass you owe me you thieving mutherfucker.
If you think that nuts that's exactly what large corporations are
doing right now.
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
<manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Lazarhat said:
>
>>
>> What if some asshat took an archive of all your absfg posts and used your
>> ideas to make a million dollars by writing a book or a sitcom or whatnot?
>> Without ever crediting you or paying you? Or maybe take your gurning
>> picture and use it without your permission to promote SpikeTV? Certainly
>> your masterful (and award winning, I might add) gurn was worth something
>> to you when you turned them down. Am I hitting a little close to home so
>> that you can understand how an artist might feel over pirated
>> intellectual property? Are you getting a better idea of how I feel about
>> artistic thievery or do I have to pirate and send you the complete Dead
>> Can Dance collection to prove my point?
>>
>> Oh you'd like that wouldn't you! ;p
>
>Hasn't this already happened? ABSFG is systematically
>looted for its humor...I just wan't a little piece of the
>pie...then I can feed it to the evil clown that lives under
>my bed.
i told you cake
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
Hope that's all business loss.
>>So basically, since it was costing me between $3 and $5 per CD to
>>manufacture, we weren't making diddly for the so-called 'art', we just
>>didn't want to lose our asses on mfg. costs. And by we, I'm using the
>>'royal we', because I really mean me.... 'we' realized that primarily the
>>'livelihood' part of being a musician was the performance aspect of the
>>'art', not the CD. DUH! But as a musician, it costs gas money to drive to
>>a gig 800 miles away (Anchorage to Skagway there and back -- so actually
>>800x2) or 300 miles away (Homer and back or Fairbanks and back so 300x2).
>>I'm not independently wealthy! I was a working artist, bub.
>>
So you can write if off against other income? I hope?
You know how musicians are spend $500 for a $50 gig they want under
the table to not pay tax on the $50.
The assumption is that the people stealing would have bought if they
couldn't steal. I think mostly they wouldn't bother at all. Perhaps
the fault lays with the middle men like the MPAA and the distribution.
It may be more like you contract with them to sell what's in your
house and they do it by taking the doors out and leaving a donations
box next to the door and wander off. No ones forcing you or them to
distributed your wares in a completely unsecured form.
Market forces are supposed to be about human nature and you can hardly
blame humans for acting naturally when you aren't taking that into
account in your marketing.
If you want to stop people stealing from your house you could lock it
at night and hire staff to watch the stock and the till.
Standing in front of your deserted house complaining about the folks
who emptied it gets no sympathy from me.
My only surprise is the MPAA members income isn't zero,
it should be.
Yes there's a problem, an insecure distribution system.
Don't like it, don't use it.
>>Oh you'd like that wouldn't you! ;p
>
>Heh, not really. I already have almost all of it in legal
>form anyway.
>
>You err if you think my post means "it's okay to pirate
>rather than pay for." I don't think it is. You have chosen
>very narrow examples to try to demonstrate that it is "theft"
>not merely "offence against the public good" as I have argued,
>and I don't think that you have succeeded.
>
Not enough people are stealing. Until enough are to give the middle
men economic insensitive to create a secure distribution system copy
right holders will continue to be screwed by the customer and the
middle men. The MPAA can then get back to their traditional role of
making sure artists never see any royalty checks.
Your mistake is allowing the middle men who opened the flood gates to
frame the issue ignoring it was them who created the problem.
Whats the old addage, you can't protect fools from themselves.
or something like that
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
<don...@nauticom.net> wrote:
The music business is like hiring a lawyer. They get half of what you
make if not more and all the expenses in the meantime are billed to
you. If they don't make money fine you probably don't have to pay
them back much but you get Loser tattooed to your forehead and can
look forward to bar gigs and Wal-Mart jobs.
Michael Jackson is right, artists are indentured servants to the
companies that form the MPAA.. Listening to them whine about revenues
is listening to slave owners bitching about the price of cotton.
What they need is technology that makes it impossible to infringe,
then we'll look at their sales figures and stock prices and see if
their analysis of the market was correct.
I'll betting they're dead wrong.
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote:
No only that people download so much they havnt time to listen to it.
Not that I would know.
Donald Shepherd
Giggles Like a Girl wrote:
BITS BAD! BITS BAD! BITS BAD!
WAVES GOOD! WAVES GOOD! WAVES GOOD!
Don
Sanford Manley
Who is this person!!!
Could it be Dar? Cuppie? Some other refugee from
ABSFG?
--
Sanford M. Manley
I am painfully aware of the fact that
conduct everywhere falls far short of belief.-Gandhi
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>Your mistake is allowing the middle men who opened the flood gates to
>frame the issue ignoring it was them who created the problem.
>
>Whats the old addage, you can't protect fools from themselves.
>or something like that
Hey, there WAS no issue until they framed it. And that
wasn't MY mistake, it was Laz's and Bonfil's, the bastids!
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>HH Kra...@lamaslama.org said:
>
>Who is this person!!!
>
>Could it be Dar? Cuppie? Some other refugee from
>ABSFG?
Definitely dar. Couldn't be anyone else.
Giggles Like a Girl
wrote:
Brrrr, AC circuits...
Xc = 1/2*PI*F*C
Xl = 2*PI*F*L
F = PI/2*(L*C)^.5
...that's some scary shite. (and about all I remember)
Lazarhat
> lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com in <438a...@news.acsalaska.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote in
>>news:d8156$438a54c2$4038ecbe$82...@PRIMUS.CA:
>>
>>> Note, I've yet to apply "situational ethics" in this. In no
>>> case have I argued that it is justified to acquire music
>>> without paying the artist his asking price. I've merely said
>>> that it is not "theft" and should not be considered as such
>>> for the sake of public policy. I think I could take a stab
>>> at situational ethics with the mass-production high-promotion
>>> goop that the industry targets our children with, but I'm on
>>> strike at present so forget it.
>>>
>>
>>Well I certainly wouldn't wish to goad you into any actul
>>unrenumerated thinking, but you've yet to convince me that P2P music
>>sharing isn't anything other than outright theft of intellectual
>>property.
>
> Okay. If I ever attempt to do that then I think I'll
> probably start out disagreeing with the notion that
> intellectual property is in fact property.
So then it would be ok for someone to steal your kilt patterns and
designs? Use the exact same fabrics? Steal the contents and images of
your website that promotes them?
>
>
>>There's another model that has been suggested, one wherein if you
>>store certain rarities on your own hard drive you get paid a small
>>amount as part of a functioning distribution chain when another P2P
>>user downloads it from you. I believe that model has the most promise
>>but it will be hard to convince the content producers to loosen their
>>stranglehold on that distribution pipeline since that is where they
>>make most of their bread and butter AND it is where they can exert the
>>most control over their artists under contract (for example, Sony
>>refusing for two years to release Fiona Apple's "Extraordinary
>>Machine" CD because they didn't think any of the songs were
>>'commercial enough' to make the CD a hit and thus allow them to
>>maximize their profit on their artist investment and development).
>
> The reason we as a society even recognise intellectual works as
> property is that we wish to promote their production. The above
> is an example of the property right undermining the purpose of
> society in granting that recognition in the first place. I find
> that interesting.
I'm a little unclear on the concept you express here....
Ah -- the benefits of dropping them on their heads as infants exhibits
itself in practical life again!
Sounds like he should be in music classes or band classes at school, too.
Lazarhat
news:2lmmo1tfdvo47h2dr...@4ax.com:
75 years for copyrights. Unless you're Disney and can lobby for an
extension on Mickey Mouse. Like they just did.
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote in
>news:b6cbf$438b409c$4038ecbe$29...@PRIMUS.CA:
>
>> lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com in <438a...@news.acsalaska.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote in
>>>news:d8156$438a54c2$4038ecbe$82...@PRIMUS.CA:
>>>
>>>> Note, I've yet to apply "situational ethics" in this. In no
>>>> case have I argued that it is justified to acquire music
>>>> without paying the artist his asking price. I've merely said
>>>> that it is not "theft" and should not be considered as such
>>>> for the sake of public policy. I think I could take a stab
>>>> at situational ethics with the mass-production high-promotion
>>>> goop that the industry targets our children with, but I'm on
>>>> strike at present so forget it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well I certainly wouldn't wish to goad you into any actul
>>>unrenumerated thinking, but you've yet to convince me that P2P music
>>>sharing isn't anything other than outright theft of intellectual
>>>property.
>>
>> Okay. If I ever attempt to do that then I think I'll
>> probably start out disagreeing with the notion that
>> intellectual property is in fact property.
>
>So then it would be ok for someone to steal your kilt patterns and
>designs?
Yep. They aren't original enough to merit IP protection.
And they don't sell anyway.
> Use the exact same fabrics?
Of course. I don't custom-order them.
> Steal the contents and images of your website that promotes them?
They don't have to be defined as "property" to be protected,
Laz. It's not okay to kill me either, but the law that
covers that isn't a property law.
In fact as far as I can tell the very phrase "intellectual
property" is a recent, and American, invention.
And anyway, I said I think that's where'd I'd start IF I was
going to try to convince you, which I'm not. :P
(I tend to think in terms of relations not possessions.)
>>>There's another model that has been suggested, one wherein if you
>>>store certain rarities on your own hard drive you get paid a small
>>>amount as part of a functioning distribution chain when another P2P
>>>user downloads it from you. I believe that model has the most promise
>>>but it will be hard to convince the content producers to loosen their
>>>stranglehold on that distribution pipeline since that is where they
>>>make most of their bread and butter AND it is where they can exert the
>>>most control over their artists under contract (for example, Sony
>>>refusing for two years to release Fiona Apple's "Extraordinary
>>>Machine" CD because they didn't think any of the songs were
>>>'commercial enough' to make the CD a hit and thus allow them to
>>>maximize their profit on their artist investment and development).
>>
>> The reason we as a society even recognise intellectual works as
>> property is that we wish to promote their production. The above
>> is an example of the property right undermining the purpose of
>> society in granting that recognition in the first place. I find
>> that interesting.
>
>I'm a little unclear on the concept you express here....
Society's purpose in recognising IP is promoting the production
of it. Society's laws that define IP have been used by Sony to
PREVENT the production of IP (eg. Fiona Apple's CD). They have
exercised their "ownership" to keep it away from society, not
to provide it. (This is like BP buying up the best photovoltaic
patents and shelving them.)
Er, yeah...isn't that where I said he was learning gee-tar?
Problem is they won't let him stay in there next semester.
I may have to spring for lessons (which I can ill-afford)
just to keep him going with it.
Donald Shepherd
>
> Brrrr, AC circuits...
>
> Xc = 1/2*PI*F*C
> Xl = 2*PI*F*L
> F = PI/2*(L*C)^.5
>
> ...that's some scary shite. (and about all I remember)
>
>
> --
> Daryl ->>---> Brain Strike! No mentation without compensation!
>
> To email me add dawt see eh.
You didn't smoke enough dope when you were studying those equations.
You have to get where you can actually see those little vectors
spinning around at the operating frequency and projecting themselves
onto the real and imaginary axes. Then you just combine those
projections using Norton and Thevenin equivalents and you're done.
I am now studying how to write code for 8052 class micros. I am also
studying how to design a circuit using such a micro to make a pipe
pressure testing machine. It's supposed to ship in mid December. HA.
hA. ha. Dope doesn't help with bits.
Don
Lazarhat
>>>At our gigs we charged $8 or two CDs for $15. We sold wholesale to
>>>record stores for $5 and asked them not to charge more than $12.99
>>>for it. All complied with our wishes.
>>>
> Hope that's all business loss.
I don't understand....
>
>>>So basically, since it was costing me between $3 and $5 per CD to
>>>manufacture, we weren't making diddly for the so-called 'art', we
>>>just didn't want to lose our asses on mfg. costs. And by we, I'm
>>>using the 'royal we', because I really mean me.... 'we' realized that
>>>primarily the 'livelihood' part of being a musician was the
>>>performance aspect of the 'art', not the CD. DUH! But as a musician,
>>>it costs gas money to drive to a gig 800 miles away (Anchorage to
>>>Skagway there and back -- so actually 800x2) or 300 miles away (Homer
>>>and back or Fairbanks and back so 300x2). I'm not independently
>>>wealthy! I was a working artist, bub.
>>>
> So you can write if off against other income? I hope?
No. I absorbed the cost and did all it as a labor of love and devotion to
practicing my 'art'. Only occasionally do I whine about it, but artists
can be SUCH drama queens, can't we?
>
> You know how musicians are spend $500 for a $50 gig they want under
> the table to not pay tax on the $50.
Again, something lost in the translation here....
I wouldn't want any music of mine to be 'locked' so that people couldn't
rip it to .mp3 or whatever. CDs want to be open not DRM'd and rootkitted.
That's wrong and eliminates consumer choice for when and where they can
listen to it -- perhaps another factor in lesser sales or listenership.
However, broadband distribution should facilitate being able to download
songs for cheaper than a buck each. Cheaper than half a buck even if you
deal in volume or direct payments to the artists themselves. If I had any
decent recorded songs that ate wholly of my own issue (not an easy thing
to come by with a non-solo artist), perhaps I'd try it just as an
experiment. Heck, I could make something like -- well, maybe five whole
dollars! W00t!
>
> My only surprise is the MPAA members income isn't zero,
> it should be.
Hmm. Maybe a dollar. Is that still what Steve Jobs is getting paid?
>
> Yes there's a problem, an insecure distribution system.
> Don't like it, don't use it.
I don't care for that attitude. I don't see people stealing paintings off
the walls of local art galleries (implying that LOCAL rather than FAMOUS
painters are on display) just because the gallery hasn't put a lock on
it. Stealing is stealing. It is a WRONG action.
>
>
>>>Oh you'd like that wouldn't you! ;p
>>
>>Heh, not really. I already have almost all of it in legal
>>form anyway.
>>
>>You err if you think my post means "it's okay to pirate
>>rather than pay for." I don't think it is. You have chosen
>>very narrow examples to try to demonstrate that it is "theft"
>>not merely "offence against the public good" as I have argued,
>>and I don't think that you have succeeded.
>>
>
> Not enough people are stealing. Until enough are to give the middle
> men economic insensitive to create a secure distribution system copy
> right holders will continue to be screwed by the customer and the
> middle men. The MPAA can then get back to their traditional role of
> making sure artists never see any royalty checks.
This is bullshit. Funny, but bullshit funny. Because surely you must be
drunk. Again.
They need to change the distribution model before they're out of a job.
Kim Bonfils! Is there a cyber-label that does artist development, A&R
work, promotion and distribution that you are aware of? I'm not, but I'm
a retired touring musician that hasn't kept up on the scene....
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>Giggles Like a Girl wrote:
>>
>> Brrrr, AC circuits...
>>
>> Xc = 1/2*PI*F*C
>> Xl = 2*PI*F*L
>> F = PI/2*(L*C)^.5
>>
>> ...that's some scary shite. (and about all I remember)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daryl ->>---> Brain Strike! No mentation without compensation!
>>
>> To email me add dawt see eh.
>
>You didn't smoke enough dope when you were studying those equations.
>You have to get where you can actually see those little vectors
>spinning around at the operating frequency and projecting themselves
>onto the real and imaginary axes. Then you just combine those
>projections using Norton and Thevenin equivalents and you're done.
Yeah, I kinda lost it at Norton.
>I am now studying how to write code for 8052 class micros. I am also
>studying how to design a circuit using such a micro to make a pipe
>pressure testing machine. It's supposed to ship in mid December. HA.
>hA. ha. Dope doesn't help with bits.
Heh heh, nope it doesn't, and I CAN see how it helps with
floating vector math in the head. (In fact, something a tad
better than the stuff ya smoke works out too.) Thing for me
was I already got into digital before we got too far out of
DC, so it's kinda like my path forked early and I just stayed
on it. Pity in some ways. I'd have liked to be a lot better
at analogue circuits now that it's more hobby than anything
for me.
Lazarhat
> bonfils wrote:
>> "Donald Shepherd" <don...@nauticom.net>
>>
>> > The earliest musical instruments found so far are bone flutes
>> > (pentatonically tuned) from about 30,000 years ago. The earliest
>> > money dates back only to about nine thousand years ago. Humans have
>> > been making music a lot longer than they have been making money.
>> > Artists don't need remuneration to make music.
>>
>> No. Just to make *good* music.
>
> Which definition of "good" music are you using? Would none of it be
> made without money? How much "good" music does society "need"?
ALL OF IT!
>
>> Art takes time. Lot and lots of time. Money means you can spend *all*
>> your time making music, instead of fiddling about for a few hours
>> after work.
>>
>> > Indeed, money usually corrupts
>> > art.
>>
>> No - bad artists corrupt art.
>> If an artist doesn't have balls, sure, he will roll over and drool at
>> the mere thought of filthy lucre.
>> But an artist with *any* hint of integrity will use the financial
>> independence to realize his personal vision.
>
> Financial independence? Who has that? If you do you are distinctly in
> the minority and you may no longer have the perspective to judge those
> who don't. After all, integrity also includes responsibly providing
> for your family:
>
> Q. What's the difference between a musician and a large pizza?
> A. A large pizza can feed a family of four.
Another reason to change the model. Bad jokes about real problems with
real people working to just survive in the livelihood of choice. If I
only knew some funny one about analog circuit designers, but alas there
aren't none as famous as our own Don Shepherd. Least not that come around
these parts.
>
> First things first.
>
>>
>> --
>> bonfils
>> http://kim.bonfils.com
>
> I think I should take some time and express my thoughts on the whole
> subject of "Intellectual Property". As an Analog Circuit Designer I've
> come up with several original ideas that solved problems that my
> employers had. Usually, the major part of the work was building my
> understanding of the problem. Once that was done, the solution became
> obvious. Although some of my ideas were patented, our company chose
> not to defend them when competitors copied them. I agreed with them.
> The original problem was had by everyone in the industry. I see no
> right for me to be the only person in the world allowed to understand
> the problem nor do I see any right for me to be the only person
> allowed to apply an obvious solution to it. It would be extremely
> presumptuous of me to think that I was the only person in the whole
> wide world capable of solving that problem that way.
Ok. No new musical notes have been invented since the dawn of time. You
cannot 'design around' the problem of getting higher or lower
frenquencies shoved into the human ear. There are design standards.
Norms. But see, the 'art' part is in how you arrange those notes, those
frequencies. Arrange them in such an alluring manner that even Sanfy will
go *squeeka* when he hears it.
As an employee, you well know that any work you create is their property
unless you can swing a better arrangement. Most musicians however are
their own employers and thus, what they create, out of a collection of
musical notes, they own. They made it. Hopefully nobody before them or
since will create exactly the same arrangement of notes -- that's also
part of the art. *No new notes, just new ways to smash 'em together.*
Your work is perhaps more like the notes themselves or would you say that
this design work is artistic? Cannot most enjoyable endeavours, the
career paths we choose to follow, be deemed artistic and creative in some
form or another?
You get paid for your ideas and thinking, allow musicians to get paid for
theirs, hopefully in a manner which enriches them directly when self-
employed, as most working musicians are....
>
> The usual argument I hear is that if you allow free copying of ideas
> then nobody will have any incentive to create new ones. Balderdash!, I
> say. If your idea is a loser nobody will want to copy it anyway and if
> it's a winner the first one to make money from it will be you. You
> just have to be ready to exploit your idea before the rest of the
> industry can respond.
Again, writing a new novel, a new song, painting a new painting -- each
one a unique moment. Jazz. Rock. Rap. Whatever one likes. No one is
forcing anyone to pay for it. But if you really like some tune, book or
painting -- some new original work, in most other sectors of reality
other than the P2P world, you're going to pay for it in some manner.
Right? Check it out from a library? It's called commerce. People get paid
for it. Because thinking is involved. Damn thoughts!
>
> Now I realize that ripping free downloads of an artist's work is a
> whole different matter from what I just described but that problem is
> not the ripping, it's the whole business model of the recording
> industry. There, artists have to put in a great deal of effort and
> kiss a lot of ass to get the right to be distributed and promoted by a
> major label, which they hope will put them on Easy Street for life.
> Free downloads hit the business model in the back end, where the
> artist's payback is supposed to be. If a song is big enough that it's
> being downloaded enough to hurt anyone the recording company has
> already made its money and only the artist is screwed.
>
> Don
>
Exactamundo, Don!
Give the man a cigar.
And teach musicians to go direct to their listeners.
We've got a ship ready to send the middlemen off to another planet.
But not the telephone sanitizers.
Nor certainly not the analog circuit designers
Lazarhat
@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
> HH Kra...@lamaslama.org said:
>
> Who is this person!!!
>
> Could it be Dar? Cuppie? Some other refugee from
> ABSFG?
>
Lee. Sockpuppet.
Lazarhat
We've got a ship ready to send the middlemen off to another planet.
But not the telephone sanitizers.
Nor certainly not the analog circuit designers
Musicians need to go direct to their audience. Same for most artists I'd
imagine. Some of us weren't or aren't looking to be David Lee Roth famous
(or infamous). We're just working musicians, making whatever we can by
playing music for people in various stages of inebriation or intoxication
(or not, if that's your 'thing'). Craftsmen. Jongleurs. Wandering bards.
Poets. Whatevah....
(and now some of them work in technology and the legal profession, so the
world and models should change soon. the old ones iz br0k3d).
Dave K
A friend of mine figurted out that he has enough music on his computer
(Including his own CDs that he just ripped) for two continuous months
without repeating anything.
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote:
>zedd...@hotmail.com in <t6omo1p0g5pc28vgq...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>Your mistake is allowing the middle men who opened the flood gates to
>>frame the issue ignoring it was them who created the problem.
>>
>>Whats the old addage, you can't protect fools from themselves.
>>or something like that
>
>Hey, there WAS no issue until they framed it. And that
>wasn't MY mistake, it was Laz's and Bonfil's, the bastids!
Poor things, we all know they'd be international poop stars
if it weren't for those evil pirates whomever they may be.
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
<lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com> wrote:
>"HH Kra...@lamaslama.org" <zedd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:t6omo1p0g5pc28vgq...@4ax.com:
>
>>>>At our gigs we charged $8 or two CDs for $15. We sold wholesale to
>>>>record stores for $5 and asked them not to charge more than $12.99
>>>>for it. All complied with our wishes.
>>>>
>> Hope that's all business loss.
>
>I don't understand....
>
>>
>>>>So basically, since it was costing me between $3 and $5 per CD to
>>>>manufacture, we weren't making diddly for the so-called 'art', we
>>>>just didn't want to lose our asses on mfg. costs. And by we, I'm
>>>>using the 'royal we', because I really mean me.... 'we' realized that
>>>>primarily the 'livelihood' part of being a musician was the
>>>>performance aspect of the 'art', not the CD. DUH! But as a musician,
>>>>it costs gas money to drive to a gig 800 miles away (Anchorage to
>>>>Skagway there and back -- so actually 800x2) or 300 miles away (Homer
>>>>and back or Fairbanks and back so 300x2). I'm not independently
>>>>wealthy! I was a working artist, bub.
>>>>
>> So you can write if off against other income? I hope?
>
>No. I absorbed the cost and did all it as a labor of love and devotion to
>practicing my 'art'. Only occasionally do I whine about it, but artists
>can be SUCH drama queens, can't we?
>
Isert all "lead _____" jokes here.
>>
>> You know how musicians are spend $500 for a $50 gig they want under
>> the table to not pay tax on the $50.
>
>Again, something lost in the translation here....
>
I don't know or understand the US tax system, I'm not sure anyone
does, but in general I've see that artists don't set themselves up in
a business model that works for them and tend to do things that harm
them.
"I'll have people that do that for me when I get my deal"
"You're 19 on welfare, you don't have people."
It's been a long time 10 years in fact since I dealt with anything
seriously, times change and everywhere is different.
I know a couple of people trying here and well it's just all very
depressing. A kid with a voice like a lasar slicing crystal, but small
town fear of being away from friends, a girl fantastic I guess drum
and bass mostly dj, just likes to throw an awsome party, and the next
Slipnot, its always been just a couple of months away for the last
four years meanwhile another mid west in a bad 5 year contract.
No one wants Slipnot anymore so why them.
Someday someone somewhere will solve the problem and we'll all slap
our heads and say why didn't I think of that.
>>
>> My only surprise is the MPAA members income isn't zero,
>> it should be.
>
>Hmm. Maybe a dollar. Is that still what Steve Jobs is getting paid?
>
>>
>> Yes there's a problem, an insecure distribution system.
>> Don't like it, don't use it.
>
>I don't care for that attitude. I don't see people stealing paintings off
>the walls of local art galleries (implying that LOCAL rather than FAMOUS
>painters are on display) just because the gallery hasn't put a lock on
>it. Stealing is stealing. It is a WRONG action.
>
Mostly trying to spin a different approach. I still wont agree the way
things are now things are distrbuted like seeds on the wind. Maybe a
double key approach. You pissed on it thats your copyright and the
consumer then pisses on it for their rights in use. I cant see how to
do that though.
What about opportunity and market fragmentation too. How many artists
were able to work in each genre in say 1960, vs, 1980, vs 2000. If the
MPAA get their way it'll be like Vegans getting their way, there wont
suddenly be happy cows there'll be no cows.
>>
>>
>>>>Oh you'd like that wouldn't you! ;p
>>>
>>>Heh, not really. I already have almost all of it in legal
>>>form anyway.
>>>
>>>You err if you think my post means "it's okay to pirate
>>>rather than pay for." I don't think it is. You have chosen
>>>very narrow examples to try to demonstrate that it is "theft"
>>>not merely "offence against the public good" as I have argued,
>>>and I don't think that you have succeeded.
>>>
>>
>> Not enough people are stealing. Until enough are to give the middle
>> men economic insensitive to create a secure distribution system copy
>> right holders will continue to be screwed by the customer and the
>> middle men. The MPAA can then get back to their traditional role of
>> making sure artists never see any royalty checks.
>
>This is bullshit. Funny, but bullshit funny. Because surely you must be
>drunk. Again.
>
Ever read an artists semi-annual statement that while they're a hit
and media star they don't have a cheque but a bill. The royalty wars
with record companies and radio stations.
Thats my point too.
>Kim Bonfils! Is there a cyber-label that does artist development, A&R
>work, promotion and distribution that you are aware of? I'm not, but I'm
>a retired touring musician that hasn't kept up on the scene....
that isnt a scam
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>"HH Kra...@lamaslama.org" <zedd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:t6omo1p0g5pc28vgq...@4ax.com:
>>
>> men economic insensitive to create a secure distribution system copy
>> right holders will continue to be screwed by the customer and the
>> middle men. The MPAA can then get back to their traditional role of
>> making sure artists never see any royalty checks.
>
>This is bullshit. Funny, but bullshit funny. Because surely you must be
>drunk. Again.
Jeez, I don't see it as BS. If enough people were stealing
they'd find some way to stop it...to secure the warehouse.
That seems dead obvious not drunk-speak. Saying "insensitive"
where you mean "incentive", now THAT's drunk-speak.
>> Your mistake is allowing the middle men who opened the flood gates to
>> frame the issue ignoring it was them who created the problem.
>>
>> Whats the old addage, you can't protect fools from themselves.
>> or something like that
>>
>
>They need to change the distribution model before they're out of a job.
Too much focus on the distribution model. The entire business
model is flawed, and always was. Stand way back and you'll see
that your expectations as an artist are driven by a historical
blip: the convergence of mass production, broadcast and recording
technologies early in the last century. The business model is
based entirely on the capacity to maintain novelty, and of course
promotion and the capacity to feed a mass market naturally come
to the fore in that, often at the expense of artistic integrity
and merit. As an artist you are identifying with this business
model as something of significance to your personal fortunes, as
if the critical issues within it -- property, piracy, middlemen,
etc.. -- are somehow connected to you. That's not terribly
logical since you as an artist primarily made your money the
old fashioned way: by entertaining people in live performances.
None of those issues are really your issues unless the glitter
of gold catches your eye.
This is how recording execs see it too. As far as they are
concerned *they* create the wealth, not their artists. It is
they who provide the facillities, the promotion and marketing,
the payola, and they have proven time and again that they can
promote mediocre shite way beyond its merits (ability to sell
itself) by turning the product into fashion rather than art.
*They* need the concept of intellectual property far more than
you do, because it's the only means by which they can control
the part of the product that people pay for.
But this business model, as I have said, is dependent on novelty,
not art. It was inevitable that it would reach a peak. To keep
the market growing it was necessary to keep shortening the time
between new consumer purchases, and that requires shortening the
shelf life of the product. As the shelf life shortens the
product becomes increasingly disposeable. No one, much less
kids, can be expected to have music collections as large as the
business model requires, so the pressure is released with piracy.
No one considers it theft precisely because it is so disposeable.
The download is just the replay of last week's MTV hit, not a
possession, in most cases -- a way to let your friends know that
you were there.
So this business model is flawed precisely because it was
inevitable that it would create the conditions of its own
demise: the saturation point of novelty. The compensating
technology of the pirate download is the poison in the well,
because it also somewhat hurts those artists that aren't part
of the novelty bandwagon by normalising the download behaviour
and providing the opportunity for it. "Working" artists such as
yourself shouldn't really feel threatened by it though.
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>And teach musicians to go direct to their listeners.
Working for coins thrown at them in pubs and on streets,
or working for the pleasure of rich patrons.
>We've got a ship ready to send the middlemen off to another planet.
Hopefully there is a middle way that doesn't need so many
middlepersons.
>But not the telephone sanitizers.
>
>Nor certainly not the analog circuit designers
Artists, artisans, we'll keep 'em both.
Wilson
"Lazarhat" <lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
snipers
>
> With the exception of Talk radio, radio is a dead medium. Radio is
> corrupt because of all the middle men in the distribution chain. That
> model is changing as the distribution method switches more and more to
> broadband distribution, placing more of the power to control their own
> content distribution and artistic freedom back in the hands of the
> artists themselves. I've worked longer as an announcer in professional
> rock oriented radio than as a musician so I've had the benefit of seeing
> both sides. Being a DJ used to entail a certain amount of artistic
> freedom and creativity, now it does not. Which is why I quit. If you want
> that sort of freedom now, you have to be a club DJ.
Overall you are correct, but there is hope. Locally there are
two stations that are locally run and programed where the DJs
have a lot of control over what they play. And both are very,
very listenable. WRNR is a commercial station and WXPN is
public radio. Both seem to be thriving. So like I said, there is
hope.
Ben
And we still get Vin Scelsa on Saturday evenings here in New York on
WFUV. Idiot's Delight has been running since 67' on various stations.
ben
--
Squirting rubbing alcohol up your
nose is rather unpleasant.
-Sanford, ABSFG
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote:
There are some other things here, big name dj's for example, or even
newer ones coming up in the dance scene. What they've done which is
always a good idea is use freely distributed mp3, the music companies
product as their free giveaway. You know total enlightenment free with
dildo purchase.
These guys make their income from the gigs the raves which now can
cost as much as big rock tours used too before they were too expensive
as promotional support for a CD. Maybe twist the knife once more a
giveaway, a free Stones ticket with each purchase of the CD. That
ticket you can't download, and jack the CD prices to cover it, and
since the concert is 'free' bet they'll have lots of cash on them when
they get there,,,,,
Ya know,,,,,,
Ben
> lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com in <438c0be7$1...@news.acsalaska.net> wrote:
>
>>And teach musicians to go direct to their listeners.
>
>
> Working for coins thrown at them in pubs and on streets,
> or working for the pleasure of rich patrons.
>
>
>
>>We've got a ship ready to send the middlemen off to another planet.
>
>
> Hopefully there is a middle way that doesn't need so many
> middlepersons.
>
>
>
>>But not the telephone sanitizers.
>>
>>Nor certainly not the analog circuit designers
>
>
> Artists, artisans, we'll keep 'em both.
>
>
You'd think that the porn industry would be all after p2p stuff since of
course people share more porn than almost anything else. But what do
they do? They just add to the mix, cause they know that increased
consumption is always good for business.
If apple had an i-porn section for i-pods folks wouldn't have to resort
to file sharing, but alas...
Ben
Edgar
Yeah, most of the porn you end up downloading is a commercial for some
site. They give us the goods, but in short bite-sized samples, that
make us want more. Did I say us? I meant...people, like other people,
people who download porn. Not me though, I just download squeeka clean
stuff.
--
Edgar
Ben
Totally. The good stuff takes a bit longer to find. I assume.
People have been infringing on copyright on Usenet for 15(or whatever)
years though. Did Playboy ever sue anyone for scanning in whole
spreads and posting them?
Giggles Like a Girl
And of course who wouldn't want to see the Stones come out on
their walkers to play.
>Ya know,,,,,,
Yes, serious out of the box thinking.
The last DCD concert I went to is available in limited edition
on CD. Every concert in the tour was like that. That's another
one of those ideas, connecting the recording to the live event.
Alas they should have made it available immediately after the
concert, right on site, with images burned on there too, but it's
going in the right direction, maybe...
Ben
I should be able to walk out with a video pod-cast of the event I just
saw so when Jack says, "hey did he really change that lyric on the third
song" I can say, "let me check my i-pod".
Giggles Like a Girl
Heh, iPorn. That's what we already have.
Giggles Like a Girl
"podcast", "ipod"...pod people....nothing that requires
marriage to a brand is going to do it for me. I don't even
know WTF a podcast is anyway.
I'd be happy with either instant video or audio though.
Video would be even better, complete with camera scans of
the audience so I can show people later which kilt I wore.
I wonder....hmmm...CD's are too slow to burn. What if at the
exit of a concert venue there was a machine into which you
put your flash card and a credit card or bank card, and it
downloaded the thing right on the spot?
Oh, is that what a "podcast" would do, but only for pod
people?
Ben
Hey Mr. Pod-goo, the brand is only a metaphor...
But yeah, that's basically what it could/would/should do. Although, for
the price of the ticket they ought to give you the thing for free when
you leave.
As far as I can tell a podcast is an MP3 with a fancy name.
Edgar
Yeah it could be the same as the machines at walmart or kmart for
printing pictures. You could bring any type of memory card you have or
even an external drive or thumb drive, plug it in, and get the music.
There should be another machine that lets you burn with the long ass
wait time, but a seperate line for those that don't wish to wait.
A podcast btw is just a recorded show, like a radio show or a talk show,
recorded to MP3 so you can listen to it later.
--
Edgar
Ben
Some friends of mine spent a long time trying to figure out how to
create a payment system for things like this that fit three needs:
security, anonymnity, and auditability. I think if we could come up
with a card/cellphonethingy/ring/thumbprint etc. that could allow for
commercial transactions following those rules it would be good.
As it is, we're stuck with a system that is none of the three.
Sigh...
Ben
These old folks have to be told everything eh? ;-)
Wilson
"Edgar" <ecam...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
The ideal system would download the concert to your
personal info device live via wi-fi. That way you could
watch it on your little itty bitty screen instead of having
to stand on your seat to see the stage.
Giggles Like a Girl
Yeah!
>A podcast btw is just a recorded show, like a radio show or a talk show,
>recorded to MP3 so you can listen to it later.
I gather it can be a video too.
Giggles Like a Girl
If they didn't want their metaphors mixed they should have
done something else after the 'i'!
>But yeah, that's basically what it could/would/should do. Although, for
>the price of the ticket they ought to give you the thing for free when
>you leave.
Tell me about it. I'm still in shock from paying $204 for
three seats at DCD. But, after spending $204, I would have
sprung another $20 for the instant memory download.
>As far as I can tell a podcast is an MP3 with a fancy name.
Ah, figures.
Giggles Like a Girl
It's true that young folks seem to have a much bigger
problem with being fashion victims than we old hippies. :>
Giggles Like a Girl
Okay, what do they want security, anonymity and auditability
for? I don't get it. You pay you get. Seems pretty simple
to me.
Giggles Like a Girl
Heh! Reminds me of a Shriekback concert we went to once; standing
room only, a dance venue. An hour before going I whipped up a
periscope using an old mirror I cut two rectangles from, a pizza
box, and hot glue. I made it so that the upper mirror supports
were just two flat struts so that the periscope wouldn't completely
obstruct the view of anyone behind the user, and wrote "Shriekback
Viewer" on the side of it just to make it official. Our pals
joked about it, but soon everyone was borrowing it.
Ben
> eggplan...@yahoo.co.uk in <5z3jf.37004$u43....@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Giggles Like a Girl wrote:
>>
>>>I'd be happy with either instant video or audio though.
>>>Video would be even better, complete with camera scans of
>>>the audience so I can show people later which kilt I wore.
>>>
>>>I wonder....hmmm...CD's are too slow to burn. What if at the
>>>exit of a concert venue there was a machine into which you
>>>put your flash card and a credit card or bank card, and it
>>>downloaded the thing right on the spot?
>>>
>>>Oh, is that what a "podcast" would do, but only for pod
>>>people?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Some friends of mine spent a long time trying to figure out how to
>>create a payment system for things like this that fit three needs:
>>security, anonymnity, and auditability. I think if we could come up
>>with a card/cellphonethingy/ring/thumbprint etc. that could allow for
>>commercial transactions following those rules it would be good.
>>
>>As it is, we're stuck with a system that is none of the three.
>>
>>Sigh...
>>Ben
>
>
> Okay, what do they want security, anonymity and auditability
> for? I don't get it. You pay you get. Seems pretty simple
> to me.
>
>
Well, you pay, you get put on a list, added to a couple of databases,
your personal information stored on unprotected servers, your financial
information sent unencrypted, and then when you want to return it they
tell you you don't have a reciept. Or something like that.
If I can buy things with my cellphone, which I'm sure will happen soon,
I'd like to have some control over the purchasing experience.
ben
Giggles Like a Girl
Doesn't sound that hard to me. In fact, it seems pretty
garden-variety ecommerce.
It would be very simple to set up a download kiosk outside
a venue, so long as it was staffed. Making machines like
those automated photo-kiosks would be very expensive, and
well beyond the means of a few friends standing around and
talking, in most cases.
Downloads aren't something that you can allow people to
return, but it's perfectly reasonable to provide people
with receipts so that if they come back claiming that
the download was bad you can re-issue it to them. Flash
cards aren't 100% reliable, and you want a good reputation.
Yeah, I think this thing is eminently do-able in either
online or kiosk form. I prefer kiosk *and* online,
because the kiosk adds the benefit of being able to
deliver unique venue-only mementos, and I think that
the immediacy and uniqueness of the experience are
important features of any such product.
I'd be very surprised if there aren't other people working
on this right now. If I had the time I'd like to be
working on something -- a brand product -- to offer venues
myself, because I think that's where this will ultimately
go.
I mean, come up with a name for it, something like podcast.
Let's call it "Shortfat". Soon people will be leaving
concerts and looking to see where they get their shortfats.
People will say to each other "did you get a shortfat of
it" and "wanna listen to my shortfat of the Neon Machine
concert?"
We should have a summit in NYC or TO to discuss this.
>If I can buy things with my cellphone, which I'm sure will happen soon,
>I'd like to have some control over the purchasing experience.
Heh, you'll have the illusion of control, anyway.
Ben
Sounds good to me. I think it is a good idea and of course it's one of
those ideas that we'll see happen and say, "hey we thought of that."
I'll bring it up at the round table today though and see what folks in
my think tank think.
>
>
>>If I can buy things with my cellphone, which I'm sure will happen soon,
>>I'd like to have some control over the purchasing experience.
>
>
> Heh, you'll have the illusion of control, anyway.
>
>
sweet precious illusions...
Edgar
Sorry, but its been thought of before. I believe someone did it or
wrote about the possibility of doing it in the near future.
--
Edgar
Daryl
ecam...@hotmail.com says...
>
>>
>
>Sorry, but its been thought of before. I believe someone did it or
>wrote about the possibility of doing it in the near future.
Yeah, us. Remember that they've taken to using precognition
to see what we'll come up with.
--
Daryl
Daryl
eggplan...@yahoo.co.uk says...
My most famous one -- which my friends keep remining me of
with things like "I still remember when you invented that"
when a commercial comes on or something -- is the "laser tag"
game. I had a primitive prototype of it working more than
two years before it hit the market. I went to a patent
lawyer, one I knew through my company (a major battery
manufacturer) so knew to be competent and not a sham, and
had a search done. It was free and clear. I was advised
to work on a proof of concept prototype (a little more
sophisticated than the first one I'd made). That was slow
going (because I wasn't an analog circuit designer). The
next year it appeared on the market and was the #1 toy that
Christmas in sales. I knew I should have taken the excess
interest the lawyer expressed as a sign of something...
I've had others over the years and can't remember them. I
think I block the memories because they bug me so much. :)
>I'll bring it up at the round table today though and see what folks in
>my think tank think.
Well, this isn't a patentable idea but it would be
important to brand name the service to sell it.
Reputation = sense of confidence = ubiquity = early
retirement.
--
Daryl
Donald Shepherd
>
> Well, this isn't a patentable idea but it would be
> important to brand name the service to sell it.
> Reputation = sense of confidence = ubiquity = early
> retirement.
>
>
> --
> Daryl
Just sell one-time-use passwords at a kiosk or whatever. No inventory,
the printed slip with the password is the receipt, You can print the
legal bullshit on the back, and you can take the time it needs to edit
your product. Multi-camera video doesn't edit itself, and you can't
guarantee you won't miss the best part if you try to edit in real time.
With practice, a team of video geeks could have it ready a few hours
after the end of the show. Then the customer can get home, start the
download, go to bed, and have it when he gets up. Even with dialup.
(Highlights version)
Don
Giggles Like a Girl
wrote:
Now we're cooking! I'd thought of that but the immediacy wasn't
there so I dismissed it. But now I'm thinking, they get the
password card in a souvenir programme the size of a CD insert,
AND they get instant download of the audio. Then when they get
home they can get the edited video the next day, and the same
password can be used to access the audio again in case their
download failed on them (flash cards can do that sometimes so a
backup system is necessary for customer service). Make the
pasword number good for three downloads within 90 days or
something like that, just so you don't imply that you will
provide customer support forever.
The password card/CD insert/programme is a souvenir all by
itself, but this is the good part: The password is buried
in the data files too, so there's a slight disincentive to
pirate and at least the pair go together for the nostalgic
and resale value of a guaranteed authentic and legit article.
Wilson
"Daryl" <nos...@phoney.address> wrote ...
Because we simply are that good.
Wilson
"Giggles Like a Girl" <abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol> wrote ...
I bet the idea's never been patented. With the current state
of the law (as I understand it anyways) all one needs to do
is submit it to the patent office with all of the right paperwork
and whatnot. In 4 or 5 years when the rest of the world
catches up and someone actually does it, you just pull it out
and slap it down (the patent that is).
Ben
That's probably easier than trying to create/market the thing ourselves.
We're missing the point that it needs to have an evil component for it
to really work well though. In order to keep the costs down, and give
it away for a small amount of money, if not free, you'll have to sell ad
space. Maybe in between songs? A couple ads at the begining of the
video? Ads on the DVD/CD packaging? Ads on the kiosk? Ads written in
the sky over your house?
You get the idea.
Lazarhat
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:26:40 -0500,
> abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote:
>
>>zedd...@hotmail.com in <t6omo1p0g5pc28vgq...@4ax.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Your mistake is allowing the middle men who opened the flood gates to
>>>frame the issue ignoring it was them who created the problem.
>>>
>>>Whats the old addage, you can't protect fools from themselves.
>>>or something like that
>>
>>Hey, there WAS no issue until they framed it. And that
>>wasn't MY mistake, it was Laz's and Bonfil's, the bastids!
>
> Poor things, we all know they'd be international poop stars
> if it weren't for those evil pirates whomever they may be.
>
>
>
Don't be silly. I don't have the constitution to be an international poop
star. You've got to be at Stavros' level before that can happen.
But seriously, I had no dreams like that.... I was just glad to be able
to get to play our music live -- getting paid for it was just a bonus.
However mentation WAS involved so at the very least someone should've
been getting paid.
Lazarhat
news:c620d$438beb3b$4038ecbe$27...@PRIMUS.CA:
> lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com in <438b...@news.acsalaska.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote in
>>news:b6cbf$438b409c$4038ecbe$29...@PRIMUS.CA:
>>
>>> lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com in
>>> <438a...@news.acsalaska.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote in
>>>>news:d8156$438a54c2$4038ecbe$82...@PRIMUS.CA:
>>>>
>>>>> Note, I've yet to apply "situational ethics" in this. In no
>>>>> case have I argued that it is justified to acquire music
>>>>> without paying the artist his asking price. I've merely said
>>>>> that it is not "theft" and should not be considered as such
>>>>> for the sake of public policy. I think I could take a stab
>>>>> at situational ethics with the mass-production high-promotion
>>>>> goop that the industry targets our children with, but I'm on
>>>>> strike at present so forget it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well I certainly wouldn't wish to goad you into any actul
>>>>unrenumerated thinking, but you've yet to convince me that P2P music
>>>>sharing isn't anything other than outright theft of intellectual
>>>>property.
>>>
>>> Okay. If I ever attempt to do that then I think I'll
>>> probably start out disagreeing with the notion that
>>> intellectual property is in fact property.
>>
>>So then it would be ok for someone to steal your kilt patterns and
>>designs?
>
> Yep. They aren't original enough to merit IP protection.
> And they don't sell anyway.
As always, most entrepreneurs are just one marketing campaign away from
becoming rich and famous.
>
>
>> Use the exact same fabrics?
>
> Of course. I don't custom-order them.
>
>
>> Steal the contents and images of your website that promotes them?
>
> They don't have to be defined as "property" to be protected,
> Laz. It's not okay to kill me either, but the law that
> covers that isn't a property law.
>
> In fact as far as I can tell the very phrase "intellectual
> property" is a recent, and American, invention.
>
> And anyway, I said I think that's where'd I'd start IF I was
> going to try to convince you, which I'm not. :P
>
> (I tend to think in terms of relations not possessions.)
Without IP rights protection there'd be no Hollywood, no Buffy, no
BattleStar Galactica for all your Canadian actors to work in....
>
>
>>>>There's another model that has been suggested, one wherein if you
>>>>store certain rarities on your own hard drive you get paid a small
>>>>amount as part of a functioning distribution chain when another P2P
>>>>user downloads it from you. I believe that model has the most
>>>>promise but it will be hard to convince the content producers to
>>>>loosen their stranglehold on that distribution pipeline since that
>>>>is where they make most of their bread and butter AND it is where
>>>>they can exert the most control over their artists under contract
>>>>(for example, Sony refusing for two years to release Fiona Apple's
>>>>"Extraordinary Machine" CD because they didn't think any of the
>>>>songs were 'commercial enough' to make the CD a hit and thus allow
>>>>them to maximize their profit on their artist investment and
>>>>development).
>>>
>>> The reason we as a society even recognise intellectual works as
>>> property is that we wish to promote their production. The above
>>> is an example of the property right undermining the purpose of
>>> society in granting that recognition in the first place. I find
>>> that interesting.
>>
>>I'm a little unclear on the concept you express here....
>
> Society's purpose in recognising IP is promoting the production
> of it. Society's laws that define IP have been used by Sony to
> PREVENT the production of IP (eg. Fiona Apple's CD). They have
> exercised their "ownership" to keep it away from society, not
> to provide it. (This is like BP buying up the best photovoltaic
> patents and shelving them.)
Which is exactly what (Arco -- now owned by BP) did.
In the case of Fiona, the IP rights are hers. She wrote the songs. She
signed a deal with Sony to distribute the mechanicals -- the CDs and
promote her CDs and tapes. In exchange Sony gets paid a portion of the
profits from those sales. So while the artist is inclined to get their
stuff out there at any cost or for free, Sony has a vested interest in
preventing that. Thus why they're RIAA members.
I've been saying that the model needs to be changed, with artists being
in charge of their own distribution so that any monies flow back directly
into the hands of the artists themselves.... so don't put me in the
column that supports the RIAA or the recording labels. I support the
artists. In fact I've often wondered how an artist would react if I sent
them $12 directly for their CD rather than funneling it through all the
middle me (after which they artist is more likely to get 12 cents than 12
dollars).
>
>
>>>>So basically we're not disagreeing on much other than terminology or
>>>>perhaps methodology.
>>>
>>> True, but I forgot how fricking sensitive you artists are! ;) I,
>>> fortunately, am blessed with tone-deafness and no sense of rhythm.
>>>
>>> Unlike #2 son, who we just had parent-teacher night for. To our
>>> surprise his teachers consider him a genius who just isn't trying,
>>> not an ADD-case who is struggling just to stay focussed. Both are
>>> true but they only see the genius. He has taken guitar in music
>>> class this semester. Last night, trying to get him to complete
>>> his homework assignment, I am sitting with my little Casio
>>> keyboard. I have it out because he is learning Greensleeves,
>>> which I happen to be able to play by heart, and we are trying to
>>> settle whether a note should be F or F#. (turns out even music
>>> sheets disagree) Later he is trying to show me another tune he
>>> learned, and I am trying to mimic it by ear. I'm not doing well
>>> so he leans over my keyboard and plunks it out for me so I can
>>> see it played right. After he's done T says to me "you realise
>>> he did that with the keyboard upside down." I did. The little
>>> bastid!
>>>
>>> To top it off his history teacher informed us that he has a
>>> photographic memory. I knew it was good but I didn't realise it
>>> was that good. She noticed that all he has to do is read
>>> something and he remembers everything in it. I, on the other
>>> hand, am not even able to remember *that* I read it most of the
>>> time.
>>>
>>> SO I am thinking I will send him to music camp at Acadia next
>>> year, and maybe I will take the sound engineering camp so that
>>> I can at least be his recording engineer when he gets famous.
>>>
>>> http://conted.acadiau.ca/esyp/music/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ah -- the benefits of dropping them on their heads as infants exhibits
>>itself in practical life again!
>>
>>Sounds like he should be in music classes or band classes at school,
>>too.
>
> Er, yeah...isn't that where I said he was learning gee-tar?
> Problem is they won't let him stay in there next semester.
> I may have to spring for lessons (which I can ill-afford)
> just to keep him going with it.
As long as he has access to a decent guitar, he may continue to play. Or
try locking him in a room naked with nothing but a guitar and don't let
him out until he's learned all of Hendrix at least up through 'Electric
Ladyland'.
HH Krappa@lamaslama.org
<lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bits_yahoo.com> wrote:
Musicians are like strippers. Where they've unionized they can get up
to 10 grand a week without lapdances and where free market
exploitation exists they pay for the privledge of dancing for tips and
the chance to prostitute.
Giggles Like a Girl
>
>abs...@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol (Giggles Like a Girl) wrote in
>Without IP rights protection there'd be no Hollywood, no Buffy, no
>BattleStar Galactica for all your Canadian actors to work in....
Pish. Without IP we'd figure out some other way to make
the rewards available. Maybe we'd call it AR (artistic
rewards) or something, but we'd find a way. "Property"
isn't the only way to make it happen is all I'm saying.
We'd agree that there has to be some kind of decent
protection for the fruits of one's labours.
I am being tapped on the shoulder by the Brain Police
now...
>I've been saying that the model needs to be changed, with artists being
>in charge of their own distribution so that any monies flow back directly
>into the hands of the artists themselves.... so don't put me in the
>column that supports the RIAA or the recording labels. I support the
>artists. In fact I've often wondered how an artist would react if I sent
>them $12 directly for their CD rather than funneling it through all the
>middle me (after which they artist is more likely to get 12 cents than 12
>dollars).
They'd have to inform you that they couldn't take the money
since they sold their "property" to the landowner and they
are but serfs now.
>> Problem is they won't let him stay in there next semester.
>> I may have to spring for lessons (which I can ill-afford)
>> just to keep him going with it.
>
>As long as he has access to a decent guitar, he may continue to play. Or
>try locking him in a room naked with nothing but a guitar and don't let
>him out until he's learned all of Hendrix at least up through 'Electric
>Ladyland'.
And Tony Iommi at least up to "Heaven and Hell". :)
I have bought the guitar I was renting for him. He plays it
daily so I am quite hopeful.
Lazarhat
Agreed. I'd say the non-unionized ones account for somewhere in the mid
to high 90th percentile. Not enough people (non-musicians) see being a
musician as 'work'. The ones who remain passionate about the craft (in
both cases, musicians AND strippers) are the most entertaining and should
be the ones most appreciated. Unfortunately in real life, that's not how
it works in EITHER profession. Or so I've heard.... having never been a
professional stripper. Ahem.