Donations for music file-sharing - musicdonor.org
Jake
I'm proposing a new non-profit organistaion -
http://www.musicdonor.org/ - which enables people to make donations to
artists/musicians etc. for music which they've downloaded.
We know that file-sharing is efficient, practical and here to stay.
The music industry provides no equally good alternative - and I don't
expect them to. At the same time, the RIAA are prosecuting people for
copyright infringement. Some of those people don't necessarily want to
break the law - they just don't see any point in buying a CD which'll
never be used.
My idea is musicdonor.org. The idea is that someone uses the site to
donate money to artists and copyright/royalty holders after
downloading their music from file sharing networks. Artists do not
necessarily need to be 'signed up' to the scheme - if someone wants to
give money to artist X then they pay it to musicdonor.org and they
forward it to that artist. This doesn't, as law currently stands, make
the file sharer's actions 'legal' but over time I believe this is the
only method of payment that can possibly work. In a similar way to how
the Creative Commons works, over time artists can lax the copyright on
their works and also do away with much of their use of the music
industry, allowing them more freedom and creativity.
I'm well aware that not everyone would donate etc - but in my mind
there really isn't an alternative. The world is changing, there's no
point trying to hold on to the past - especially when the future is
better!
If you're interested in the idea then please check out the site, which
is currently a discussion board to plan the concept before programming
starts:
http://www.musicdonor.org/ .
Jake
(ja...@lineone.net is redundant, don't email me there)
tyberius
by the RIAA?
---
t
"Jake" <ja...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:d1f9bc17.03051...@posting.google.com...
David Carson
> I'm proposing a new non-profit organistaion -
> http://www.musicdonor.org/ - which enables people to make donations to
> artists/musicians etc. for music which they've downloaded.
You mean like www.musiclink.com (formerly known as Fairtunes) has been
doing for three years now?
Cheers!
David...
Stelian
Why do they need me to register, and request my email?
What, I have to prove my identity before sending money?
Their 'artists' section reads:
'Imagine getting 100% of the money coming to you instead of 15% or
5%'
but then :
'Artists only pay musiclink when they receive money through musiclink,
never otherwise'.
I wonder what that is?
They say they're promoting artists 'on this and other sites', but for
that the artist must create an account, log in and so on; I don't
want to support their organization finding customers, I just want my
money to get to the artist I chose. If I want to spread the word I
have my own ways.
That about this pay-pal sh*t? They found that an online credit card
verification system is to much? I don't want to support pay-pal or any
other 'affiliate'. Besides, pay-pal is not even available in my
country.
I want to see a huge list of people that donated money, full with
name, location and amount, and after I pay my name should be added to
the list. The artist can also see the list, this way I'm sure his
getting all the money.
Finally why do they force me donate fixed amounts of money like 10, 20
,50 $? (this is more a design flaw)
z_man
Where is your board of directors, corporate agenda, papers, registration?
Please post it on your site, so you will have credibility.
Not sure about the UK laws, do you have something like a "trust bank
account", where access and withdrawls are only available under certain
conditions.
Thanks
"Jake" <ja...@lineone.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d1f9bc17.03051...@posting.google.com...
Don M.
There *is* an alternative for your noble endeavor.
How about running on your site a searchable data bank of artists' contact
addresses where people can send money directly to?
To do what you're proposing, you must know these addresses. And you'd know who
should get the monies in case the artist is deceased and how to split donations
among members of a performing group, orchestra, even in cases where some are
living and some are gone, etc. While you're at it, have an obituary section
too - people may be more inclined to donate when the artist is dead ("a tragic
loss, but his/her music will live forever, where can I send money to?", that
sort of thing).
And, of course, allow donations to you for maintaining the data bank. :)
Don
Stelian
design and online payment , so you'd have to send checks, or maybe go
to the bank and make a transfer to the artist's account. What if I
want to make multiple payments to various artists ?(who is this
Various guy anyway?) I don't see myself carrying around a long list
with banks and accounts numbers. Made any 5$ transfers lately?
To draw a line, the donor must be highly motivated to do all this.
Compare this to visiting an internet site, selecting the artist, and
simply inserting your credit card number (assuming you can trust the
site :)), all in 5 minutes max.
Stelian
z_man <mio_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9tftf$r09$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
| Let's give these people the benefit of doubt.
|
| Where is your board of directors, corporate agenda, papers,
registration?
| Please post it on your site, so you will have credibility.
|
I don't see how a few bits of phony data could make any difference.
It's like a religious thing, either you believe in it or you don't.
I think it's a good idea.
Jake
> You mean like www.musiclink.com (formerly known as Fairtunes) has been
> doing for three years now?
I hadn't seen that site before (which is half the problem if you can't
find the site!) but yes, same idea, but more time spent, more
features, more details about artists, integrating with search engines
and making it easier, enabling people to make smaller donations (say
just £1 per artist) and enabling people to pay with credit/debit
cards.
> someone else wrote...
>How about setting up a legal defense fund to help people who are
prosecuted
by the RIAA?
Because it doesn't get to the root of the problem. Its a way out
rather than an alternative. It takes away power from the RIAA rather
than trying to gain enough power to take it on in court. Because its
more cost effective. Because people want it.
If you're still interested in this topic, please do add to the
discussion in the 'planning stage' discussion forums at
http://www.musicdonor.org/ .
Jake
Don M.
"Stelian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:b9tn39$n98a1$1...@ID-194487.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Don M." <newsr...@4finearts.com> wrote in message
news:b9tlmj$movl5$1...@ID-164031.news.dfncis.de...
(postings rearranged for clarity)
Who said anything about carrying lists around? You go to this "donor" web site,
search the data bank (database), get the artists' addresses (which could be an
url to their own sites) and pay them directly, online or via snail mail. Make
multiple payments to several artists if you want. It takes much less than 5
minutes to write a check and stuff an envelope. Your stamp will also go to
support postal services and their employees. Artists without a web site need
only walk up to their mailboxes. Do you think the "donor" site will issue you a
refund in case the artist has recently moved to under a nearby bridge and can no
longer be contacted? I don't think so. OTOH, the post office should return
mail to you, and in your check won't be cashed in that event.
Don
Darrell
millions of dollars your old government in Africa needed to get out of the
country? All I had to do was send you a couple thousand dollars as a good
faith gesture.
--
Darrell R. Schmidt
dsch...@cox.net
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
"Jake" <ja...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:d1f9bc17.03051...@posting.google.com...
Stelian
doesn't stand a chance.
| Who said anything about carrying lists around? You go to this
"donor" web site,
| search the data bank (database), get the artists' addresses (which
could be an
| url to their own sites) and pay them directly, online or via snail
mail.
You could pay them online on their site only if they had one. Do you
know how much a complete epayment solution costs? I'm sure Madonna
would quickly set one up (that bitch), but smaller artists (about 99%
of them) can't afford it. And why have 10.000 epayment sites instead
of just one?
This leaves us the snail mail checks ...
| Make multiple payments to several artists if you want. It takes
much less than 5
| minutes to write a check and stuff an envelope.
Now really, the _whole_ process (take it to the mail ...) takes allot
more. Why do I have to limit my self to this primitive method of
payment? A site (once again, provided that is trustworthy) can accept
mail-checks, but also credit cards, pay-pal ...
|Your stamp will also go to
| support postal services and their employees.
Maybe I don't want to. I'm a copyright infringing criminal, remember?
I might feel bad about stealing music from my favorite artist, but
that's it! I'm not set to save the world!
|Artists without a web site need
| only walk up to their mailboxes.
Yeah, and find it filed with junk fan mail and pictures of naked male
devotees...!
| Do you think the "donor" site will issue you a
| refund in case the artist has recently moved to under a nearby
bridge and can no
| longer be contacted? I don't think so. OTOH, the post office
should return
| mail to you, and in your check won't be cashed in that event.
What makes you emit such a drastic sentence before the site is even
online? Quite the contrary, a decent web site _will_ make all the
efforts to ensure the money goes to whom it supposed to, or refund if
that's impossible. On the other hand the snail mail option is much
less secure. If the letter is suddenly "lost in the mail" who would
you sue? A post employee might stack, lets say, one of every ten
letters for Metallica's "send us more money" PO box. He could then go
to the bank with some phony papers with the name "Lars Ulrich" and
ca$h in.
This sort of things happened so many times, that the most post offices
don't recommend sending checks with regular mail, but rather use more
expensive, guaranteed delivery systems.
|
|
| Don
|
|
Stelian
Loco Jones
> I'm proposing a new non-profit organistaion -
> http://www.musicdonor.org/ - which enables people to make
> donations to artists/musicians etc. for music which they've downloaded.
I'm proposing a new non-accountable organization -
WahWahWah.starvingartists.net - which enables people to make donations to
untalented hacks who can't get a record contract or fabricated groups like
TLC who declared bankruptcy after selling 10 million albums.
Nice try, but something just ain't "jake" with your idea.
- Loco -
(Now Playing: Shaky Jake - Art Blakey & The Jazz Messengers)
Stelian
| I'm proposing a new non-accountable organization -
| WahWahWah.starvingartists.net - which enables people to make
donations to
| untalented hacks who can't get a record contract or fabricated
groups like
| TLC who declared bankruptcy after selling 10 million albums.
|
| Nice try, but something just ain't "jake" with your idea.
If TLC is what you listen to, it's your problem. I listen to allot of
artists, that I know make no money, and I'd like a way to give them
money directly.
'untalented hacks ' by who's standards? Some of these 'untalented
hacks ' can't get a contract exactly because labels find 'fabricated
groups like TLC' much more profitable.
Jake
> Let's give these people the benefit of doubt.
>
> Where is your board of directors, corporate agenda, papers, registration?
> Please post it on your site, so you will have credibility.
>
> Not sure about the UK laws, do you have something like a "trust bank
> account", where access and withdrawls are only available under certain
> conditions.
At the moment, I'm simply trying to guage the level of interest for
this idea, come up with possibly problems, and figure out just how
much time/effort/money has to go into it. Also, I'm not overly keen on
the 'musicdonor.org' domain, but after hours of brainstorming with
thesaurus.reference.com it was the best I could come up with (with a
.com as well) that wasn't already a porn site (e.g. my favourite -
feedmusic.com)
There is currently no board of directors, corporate agenda, papers,
registration etc. However, I do have the necessary papers from
Companies House to set up a limited company, and also papers from the
UK Charities Commission to turn that limited company into a registered
charity. However, I'm not too keen on the non-profit setup here in the
UK. The US seems to have that better figured out so I'm trying to work
out the best way to do it. It may be that the easiest thing to do for
the time-being at least will be to run it out of my own pocket, funded
by my wages from my other for-profit business. When it comes to
actually setting up to receive donations etc. then registering a
company/charity/both (quite confusing here in the UK if you're to
accept money, especially if some/most of that is from abroad!) will
obviously be necessary.
Stelian, the man, said...
> This site (musiclink) is crap.
As I said in another post which isn't appearing on google groups yet
(I really should use a proper news reader/sender), the idea is the
same as per musicdonor.org, but the 'crap' factor should not be. I've
4 years web development experience under my belt and am a
perfectionist with details, usability, structure, systems etc. so
musicdonor.org should excel. However, I am looking for some php/mysql
gurus to help me out with some programming. Its a pretty huge job to
get right, and such communities usually pull together for such
community non-profit projects.
Musiclink.com uses paypal. Musicdonor.org will use credit/debit cards
as main form of payment, and be very transparent in terms of who's
paid how much etc.
In terms of funding musicdonor.org - not sure yet. Probably fund it
myself if I have the money, with voluntary work from the web community
for various tasks such as programming and data entry/research etc.
Donations, as per the nature of the site, will also help. I'd prefer
not to have to run adverts etc. to make the site fund itself.
And Stelian, chears for registering in the forums - others interested
in this project should do the same, continuing discussion like that
there instead/as well as here ( http://www.musicdonor.org ). I also
intend to copy and paste a lot of this discussion into there, unless
anyone objects.
>
Don. M said...
>How about running on your site a searchable data bank of artists'
contact
addresses where people can send money directly to?
The whole idea is to make donating money easy - as easy as downloading
the music in the first place. Whip out your credit card, press a few
numbers and you're done. No making an envelope, sticking a postal note
in it, finding an address, going to the post box... you'd might as
well jsut buy their CD!
Jake.
Usenet.de
totally above board with full contact details and access to accounts. If you
set up a limited company AFAIK everyone has the right to view your accounts
after submission to Co. House.
What percentage would you envisage as an administration fee? As you could
not run this service on thin air.
How would you determine who should receive the funds? Artists individually
or the record company.
What benefits would donors gain? Apart from the obvious.
Do you really feel people would donate?
Do you think record companies etc would allow this based on the premise that
it would legitimise to a certain degree blatant piracy?
Again a good idea but so many variables and the time to administrate and run
such a service would be huge.
Good luck!
"Jake" <ja...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:d1f9bc17.03051...@posting.google.com...
: Hi,
Loco Jones
... Loco Jones wrote...
> | I'm proposing a new non-accountable organization -
> | WahWahWah.starvingartists.net - which enables people to make
> | donations to untalented hacks who can't get a record contract or
> | fabricated groups like TLC who declared bankruptcy after selling
> | 10 million albums.
> |
> | Nice try, but something just ain't "jake" with your idea.
> If TLC is what you listen to, it's your problem.
Did I say I listened to (never mind purchase) TLC?
Read again: "fabricated groups *LIKE* TLC etc."... who are but ONE example
of million-selling artists who have declared bankruptcy (for any number of
reasons), or those million-selling artists of yesteryear who died broke
thanks to a recording industry that purchased the rights to their material
for considerably 'less than a song'.
I used TLC in my original post since there happened to be a VH-1 Behind The
Music t.v. Special concerning their "fall from grace" playing at the time.
IF I were a fan (which I most assuredly am not) and IF I taped that VH-1
Special - perhaps I should be throwing a few bucks their way, you know,
because maybe I feel sorry for them?
> I listen to allot of artists, that I know make no money, and
> I'd like a way to give them money directly.
Then get in touch with their representation (agent/manager) and if they
don't have either of those, get in touch with them directly - but either
way, you probably won't get very far. In the first place, your motives for
wanting to do this will be highly suspect - warranted or not - and for the
most part it will be a lot more difficult than it's worth to assuage some
sense of guilt. Also, I would be very interested in knowing how YOU "know
they make no money". If you're *that* close to them, then make a direct
deposit to their bank account.
> 'untalented hacks ' by who's standards? Some of these 'untalented
> hacks ' can't get a contract exactly because labels find 'fabricated
> groups like TLC' much more profitable.
Once again, you're missing the point in what was intended to be a bit of
sarcasm. If Jake can collect money for those artists he feels are being
cheated somehow by P2P downloads, then I should be able to collect money
for anybody I feel is cheated out of a record deal simply because they have
no talent. Or for those marginally-talented-but-successfully-marketed
"artists" who over-spent themselves on the *promise* of a big pay-off that
the fine print in a contract guarantees they will never see.
The percentage of people who download music and never purchase product at
retail is infinitesimal compared to the vast marketplace that exists and is
comprised of people WITHOUT computers/internet access.
So, while Jake may have good intentions, his plan will have little effect
in the grand scheme of things - downloading, like taping from the radio,
will NOT destroy careers, rather it may help build some that otherwise
wouldn't have a chance if they had to depend on a Clear Channel-type
pay-off. By all means support the artists you favour in whatever manner
suits you - but don't ask that others follow your lead because (in your
opinion) it's "the right thing to do".
Yes, there are inequities in the way the Entertainment Industry conducts
business - but if the artists themselves aren't willing to band together
and fight those inequities, then collecting spare change on their behalf
isn't going to accomplish anything of note. Besides making you feel better
when you download a song that is. Of course, you really should be sending
some money to the artist when you make a copy for a friend of a CD you
bought, no? Or is that somehow different?
- Loco -
(Now Playing: The Logical Song - Supertramp)
Stelian
|
| Did I say I listened to (never mind purchase) TLC?
|
| Read again: "fabricated groups *LIKE* TLC etc."... who are but ONE
example
| of million-selling artists who have declared bankruptcy (for any
number of
| reasons), or those million-selling artists of yesteryear who died
broke
| thanks to a recording industry that purchased the rights to their
material
| for considerably 'less than a song'.
|
| I used TLC in my original post since there happened to be a VH-1
Behind The
| Music t.v. Special concerning their "fall from grace" playing at the
time.
| IF I were a fan (which I most assuredly am not) and IF I taped that
VH-1
| Special - perhaps I should be throwing a few bucks their way, you
know,
| because maybe I feel sorry for them?
Chill out man. I figured out you're not a fan. What, I'm not entitled
to a little sarcasm, but you are?
|
| > I listen to allot of artists, that I know make no money, and
| > I'd like a way to give them money directly.
|
| Then get in touch with their representation (agent/manager) and if
they
| don't have either of those, get in touch with them directly - but
either
| way, you probably won't get very far. In the first place, your
motives for
| wanting to do this will be highly suspect - warranted or not - and
for the
| most part it will be a lot more difficult than it's worth to assuage
some
| sense of guilt.
Yes, I wouldn't get very far trying to give $5 to Bruce Springsteen.
But I'm sure the old tramp will come runing to get his $35.000 check.
That's one of the reasons for creating the site in the first place.
|Also, I would be very interested in knowing how YOU "know
| they make no money". If you're *that* close to them, then make a
direct
| deposit to their bank account.
|
Don't take that literally, they sure make allot more money than me. I
just want to express my support, what's wrong with that?
| > 'untalented hacks ' by who's standards? Some of these 'untalented
| > hacks ' can't get a contract exactly because labels find
'fabricated
| > groups like TLC' much more profitable.
|
| Once again, you're missing the point in what was intended to be a
bit of
| sarcasm. If Jake can collect money for those artists he feels are
being
| cheated somehow by P2P downloads, then I should be able to collect
money
| for anybody I feel is cheated out of a record deal simply because
they have
| no talent. Or for those
marginally-talented-but-successfully-marketed
| "artists" who over-spent themselves on the *promise* of a big
pay-off that
| the fine print in a contract guarantees they will never see.
Why don't you do that?
How does that relate to anything?
If you don't trust Jack, don't make donations through his site. Don't
judge him without knowing anything about him. Also don't judge the
motives of people who _might_ use the site. The talent of the artists
is not ruled by you, me or Jack. It is confirmed by the fans, so those
with no talent will receive no money, it's that simple.
|
| The percentage of people who download music and never purchase
product at
| retail is infinitesimal compared to the vast marketplace that exists
and is
| comprised of people WITHOUT computers/internet access.
|
| So, while Jake may have good intentions, his plan will have little
effect
| in the grand scheme of things - downloading, like taping from the
radio,
| will NOT destroy careers, rather it may help build some that
otherwise
| wouldn't have a chance if they had to depend on a Clear Channel-type
| pay-off.
For now. Don't forget file sharing is one of the biggest factors for
the growing of broadband.
It like saying 'SARS is not dangerous; it has only killed a few
hundred Chinese until now'.
Stealing is a crime, no mater how many people do it, and no mater if
the labels do it to.
I would like to see you when the FBI knocks at your door and seizes
your hard drive. You wont be such a happy camper then.
Give me just one example of how can a contract free artist make real
money, besides prostitution. How can making their music available for
free can help their career?
| By all means support the artists you favour in whatever manner
| suits you - but don't ask that others follow your lead because (in
your
| opinion) it's "the right thing to do".
|
Why don't ask? If you don't want to follow, then simply post your own
thread to alt.terrorism.jihad :"Let's bomb The White House". That
would be 'the right thing' in my opinion. I thought everybody has the
right to speak, this is Usenet, right?
| Yes, there are inequities in the way the Entertainment Industry
conducts
| business - but if the artists themselves aren't willing to band
together
| and fight those inequities, then collecting spare change on their
behalf
| isn't going to accomplish anything of note. Besides making you feel
better
| when you download a song that is. Of course, you really should be
sending
| some money to the artist when you make a copy for a friend of a CD
you
| bought, no? Or is that somehow different?
Possibly, it can't accomplish much. But that's more then nothing.
The file sharing is just a side of it, this has to do with copyright
abuse; but I think my friend should make his own donation if he likes
the artist. That's the whole story after all: making music free.
Usenet.de
----- Original Message -----
: | > 'untalented hacks ' by who's standards? Some of these 'untalented
: | > hacks ' can't get a contract exactly because labels find
: 'fabricated groups like TLC' much more profitable.
<snip>
: Why don't you do that?
: How does that relate to anything?
: If you don't trust Jack, don't make donations through his site. Don't
: judge him without knowing anything about him. Also don't judge the
: motives of people who _might_ use the site. The talent of the artists
: is not ruled by you, me or Jack. It is confirmed by the fans, so those
: with no talent will receive no money, it's that simple.
Now that's not true ... loads of untalented fools make loads a money I
concur with the untalented hack statement.
Media makes talented ... media makes money ... we are just sheep (me
excluded of course) ;-)
: | The percentage of people who download music and never purchase
: product at retail is infinitesimal compared to the vast marketplace <snip>
Couldn't agree more
10% slide in CD sales is due to what?
Yes downloading is a factor but a minor factor compared to
Friendly burns (mate makes a CD same as vinyl to tape ..analog style)
DVD sales roaring .. more bang for the buck so to speak
CD reaching saturation point as people have now converted vinyl collections
to CD
Cost of CD's
Reduced playlist
Less new artists
etc etc
And they can lobby and have the laws changed to suit THEIR needs ... Christ
what a fucked up country that has become and with Blair we are following
suit. Can't we get a grip and realise that the empire died years ago and
playing second fiddle to those thieving (US) politics will do us no good at
all.
: I would like to see you when the FBI knocks at your door and seizes
: your hard drive. You wont be such a happy camper then.
yeah that would be funny ... It's a long drive to everywhere else in the
world
: Give me just one example of how can a contract free artist make real
: money, besides prostitution. How can making their music available for
: free can help their career?
Em let me see ... they don't get paid for it anyway so initially no real
loss .. if they have something to offer they gain support and in the longer
term they also gain cash. No loss no gain
: | By all means support the artists you favour in whatever manner
: | suits you - but don't ask that others follow your lead because (in
: your
: | opinion) it's "the right thing to do".
: |
:
: Why don't ask? If you don't want to follow, then simply post your own
: thread to alt.terrorism.jihad :"Let's bomb The White House". That
: would be 'the right thing' in my opinion. I thought everybody has the
: right to speak, this is Usenet, right?
yeah I agree and the Whitehouse maybe the best place to start the bombing
... fuckwits the lot of em!
Analy retentive, self serving, manipulative bastards ... not unlike any
multinational ;-)
: | Yes, there are inequities in the way the Entertainment Industry
: conducts
: | business - but if the artists themselves aren't willing to band
: together
: | and fight those inequities, then collecting spare change on their
: behalf
: | isn't going to accomplish anything of note. Besides making you feel
: better
: | when you download a song that is. Of course, you really should be
: sending
: | some money to the artist when you make a copy for a friend of a CD
: you
: | bought, no? Or is that somehow different?
:
: Possibly, it can't accomplish much. But that's more then nothing.
Gota agree there ... good effort .. why not!
the real TOMMY Tutalidge
if you can't then you shouldn't be singing or backing up a group full of
no name bums.
the real TOMMY Tutalidge
but no one would sell them life insurance.
Stelian
>Now that's not true ... loads of untalented fools make loads a money I
>concur with the untalented hack statement.
>Media makes talented ... media makes money ... we are just sheep (me
>excluded of course) ;-)
>
Sad, but true. Except me, of curse.
Anyway this direct donation thing could help solve the problem.
>Couldn't agree more
>10% slide in CD sales is due to what?
>Yes downloading is a factor but a minor factor compared to
>Friendly burns (mate makes a CD same as vinyl to tape ..analog style)
>DVD sales roaring .. more bang for the buck so to speak
>CD reaching saturation point as people have now converted vinyl collections
>to CD
>Cost of CD's
>Reduced playlist
>Less new artists
Hey! I have read the article too.
>
>And they can lobby and have the laws changed to suit THEIR needs ... Christ
>what a fucked up country that has become and with Blair we are following
>suit. Can't we get a grip and realise that the empire died years ago and
>playing second fiddle to those thieving (US) politics will do us no good at
>all.
So you're not german after all.
>: Give me just one example of how can a contract free artist make real
>: money, besides prostitution. How can making their music available for
>: free can help their career?
>
>Em let me see ... they don't get paid for it anyway so initially no real
>loss .. if they have something to offer they gain support and in the longer
>term they also gain cash. No loss no gain
I was trying to point out that the current setup does not provide good
ways for a debutante to make a name for himself, without the help of
record labels. It's no use you can find his music over kazaa. One must
first know what to look for.
>
>: | By all means support the artists you favour in whatever manner
>: | suits you - but don't ask that others follow your lead because (in
>: your
>: | opinion) it's "the right thing to do".
>: |
>:
>: Why don't ask? If you don't want to follow, then simply post your own
>: thread to alt.terrorism.jihad :"Let's bomb The White House". That
>: would be 'the right thing' in my opinion. I thought everybody has the
>: right to speak, this is Usenet, right?
>
>yeah I agree and the Whitehouse maybe the best place to start the bombing
>... fuckwits the lot of em!
>Analy retentive, self serving, manipulative bastards ... not unlike any
>multinational ;-)
>
I was serious. I really want to bomb the White House.
I want first to set up this alt.terrorism.jihad ng.
Usenet.de
: >And they can lobby and have the laws changed to suit THEIR needs ...
Christ
: >what a fucked up country that has become and with Blair we are following
: >suit. Can't we get a grip and realise that the empire died years ago and
: >playing second fiddle to those thieving (US) politics will do us no good
at
: >all.
:
: So you're not german after all.
No man ... I'm far too serious to be german ;-)
Loco Jones
> | > If TLC is what you listen to, it's your problem.
> | Did I say I listened to (never mind purchase) TLC?
> Chill out man. I figured out you're not a fan. What, I'm not entitled
> to a little sarcasm, but you are?
Of course - you're entitled to be as sarcastic as you'd like, but if it
falls short of the mark, don't blame the reader.
> | > I listen to allot of artists, that I know make no money, and
> | > I'd like a way to give them money directly.
> | Then get in touch with their representation (agent/manager) and if
> | they don't have either of those, get in touch with them directly - but
> | either way, you probably won't get very far.
> Yes, I wouldn't get very far trying to give $5 to Bruce Springsteen.
> But I'm sure the old tramp will come runing to get his $35.000 check.
> That's one of the reasons for creating the site in the first place.
I doubt that Bruce would even know where the money came from after it
cleared his lawyers, accountants and financial advisors. That's assuming
the money collected would even get that far - and people are expected to
take "on faith" that it will?
> | Also, I would be very interested in knowing how YOU "know
> | they make no money". If you're *that* close to them, then make a
> | direct deposit to their bank account.
> Don't take that literally, they sure make allot more money than me. I
> just want to express my support, what's wrong with that?
Don't take it literally? Words can be powerful things, but they can't turn
people into mind-readers. Am I to surmise that "they sure make allot more
money than" (you) is also figurative then? I have no way of knowing how
much you - or they - make.
I never said there was anything wrong with wanting to express your
support - I merely question the manner (and effectiveness) of asking for
donations on behalf of artists who *will* get paid according to the terms
of their contract.
Robbie Williams gets his 80 million pounds as announced in the Press, and
he's gone on record as saying filesharing/peer-to-peer ("piracy" according
to news reports) is a *good* thing. Well, of course he would - what has he
got to lose?
> | Once again, you're missing the point in what was intended to be a
> | bit of sarcasm. If Jake can collect money for those artists he feels
> | are being cheated somehow by P2P downloads, then I should be able
> | to collect money for anybody I feel is cheated out of a record deal
> | simply because they have no talent.
> | Or for those marginally-talented-but-successfully-marketed
> | "artists" who over-spent themselves on the *promise* of a big
> | pay-off that the fine print in a contract guarantees they will never
see.
> Why don't you do that?
Because it would be pointless.
> How does that relate to anything?
It doesn't - I was being sarcastic. How does collecting a few dollars
relate to the consumer war the RIAA is waging right now? Will it ensure you
can continue to download for free, yet direct your funds to the artists you
favour?
> If you don't trust Jack, don't make donations through his site. Don't
> judge him without knowing anything about him. Also don't judge the
> motives of people who _might_ use the site. The talent of the artists
> is not ruled by you, me or Jack. It is confirmed by the fans, so those
> with no talent will receive no money, it's that simple.
I don't know who this Jack (or Jake) is, much less trust/distrust him.
Nor am I judging "him", just his idea. As for the people who might use his
site, I couldn't care less about their motives, in the same manner that I'm
not concerned about how *anyone* chooses to spend their money. However, if
you're asking ME for cash, then you've got your work cut out for you in
convincing me why this this is a good idea.
> | The percentage of people who download music and never purchase
> | product at retail is infinitesimal compared to the vast marketplace
that
> | exists and is comprised of people WITHOUT computers/internet access.
> | So, while Jake may have good intentions, his plan will have little
effect
> | in the grand scheme of things - downloading, like taping from the
radio,
> | will NOT destroy careers, rather it may help build some that otherwise
> | wouldn't have a chance if they had to depend on a Clear Channel-type
> | pay-off.
> For now. Don't forget file sharing is one of the biggest factors for
> the growing of broadband.
Then broadband providers should be considerably more vocal in their
opposition to the heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA (ref: Verizon case,
pending) since it would appear a LOT of customers will be unsubscribing if
high-speed access merely means they can get e-mail spam faster than ever.
Also, this argument is predicated on the assumption that *everyone* who
downloads music ceases to be a consumer at the retail level, and I'm sorry,
but that assumption is fallacious reasoning at best.
Funny how the top-ten best-selling albums at present were widely available
on the 'net prior to and after release to the street. Odd how out-of-print
albums are considered to be "lost sales" when they are shared among fans,
who can't purchase them even though they want to. Talk about your circular
logic, but not unexpected from a cartel that claims sales are down but not
because they are releasing less product than ever before into the
marketplace.
> It like saying 'SARS is not dangerous; it has only killed a few
> hundred Chinese until now'.
Hardly the best parallel to draw. Downloading music, and making a CD copy,
isn't exactly life-threatening. At best, it *might* be
lifestyle-threatening to those artists who haven't managed to score the
platinum-coated contracts afforded a very select few. Perhaps we can
revisit this argument when everybody in the entire world has a computer
with a cd-burner and high-speed Internet access.
> Stealing is a crime, no mater how many people do it, and no mater if
> the labels do it to.
> I would like to see you when the FBI knocks at your door and seizes
> your hard drive. You wont be such a happy camper then.
1) It hasn't been established that file-sharing is stealing, or a crime
beyond possible copyright infringement. If this matter were concluded, the
peer-to-peer plug would have been pulled already.
2) The FBI has no jurisdiction where I live - but should law enforcement
officials knock on my door, they had best have a warrant, and if they have
a warrant, they best be able to prove that the hard drive they seize
actually belongs to me.
> Give me just one example of how can a contract free artist make real
> money, besides prostitution. How can making their music available for
> free can help their career?
There are some who would say that *having* a contract amounts to a
prostitution of ideals.
However, since you asked for one example:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
> | By all means support the artists you favour in whatever manner
> | suits you - but don't ask that others follow your lead because (in
> | your opinion) it's "the right thing to do".
> Why don't ask? If you don't want to follow, then simply post your own
> thread to alt.terrorism.jihad :"Let's bomb The White House". That
> would be 'the right thing' in my opinion. I thought everybody has the
> right to speak, this is Usenet, right?
I have NO idea what you are getting at with this last statement, as I never
suggested that you didn't have a right to speak, on Usenet or anywhere
else. However *what* you say may, and often does, get analyzed - which
happens in any public forum. Let's just put this down to a synaptic
misfiring on your part shall we?
> | Yes, there are inequities in the way the Entertainment Industry
> | conducts business - but if the artists themselves aren't willing to
> | band together and fight those inequities, then collecting spare
> | change on their behalf isn't going to accomplish anything of note.
> | Besides making you feel better when you download a song that is.
> | Of course, you really should be sending some money to the artist
> | when you make a copy for a friend of a CD you bought, no?
> | Or is that somehow different?
> Possibly, it can't accomplish much. But that's more then nothing.
> The file sharing is just a side of it, this has to do with copyright
> abuse; but I think my friend should make his own donation if he likes
> the artist. That's the whole story after all: making music free.
The whole story is making music free? Sorry, not from where I sit.
It's more about being able to enjoy music (or any entertainment product)
without having to pay *each and every time* I hear or view something that
just happens to be copyright-controlled by greedy conglomerates already
convicted of price-fixing by the Courts.
And that's just part of the story.
- Loco -
(Now Playing: I Hear Music - Billie Holiday)
Don M.
> It's like comparing snail-mail with email, and concluding that email
> doesn't stand a chance.
>
What are you talking about?? _What_ is like "comparing snail-mail with email"?
I didn't advocate either form of payment. I said it can be done online or via
snail mail.
---------
> | Who said anything about carrying lists around? You go to this
> "donor" web site,
> | search the data bank (database), get the artists' addresses (which
> could be an
> | url to their own sites) and pay them directly, online or via snail
> mail.
>
> You could pay them online on their site only if they had one. Do you
> know how much a complete epayment solution costs? I'm sure Madonna
> would quickly set one up (that bitch), but smaller artists (about 99%
> of them) can't afford it. And why have 10.000 epayment sites instead
> of just one?
> This leaves us the snail mail checks ...
----------
So... What's your point? I didn't say it *has* to be done online, or that
artists must set up an ebusiness site. If they have a site, fine, pay directly
online. If not, use regular mail.
------
>
> | Make multiple payments to several artists if you want. It takes
> much less than 5
> | minutes to write a check and stuff an envelope.
>
> Now really, the _whole_ process (take it to the mail ...) takes allot
> more. Why do I have to limit my self to this primitive method of
> payment? A site (once again, provided that is trustworthy) can accept
> mail-checks, but also credit cards, pay-pal ...
>
-------------
Paypal and like online payment conveniences require that one of the parties
(seller or buyer) pay a percentage of the amount involved. "Primitive" check
payments don't involve a third party and only fee would be for writing a check
(and then depending on the bank account type, it's free).
--------
> |Your stamp will also go to
> | support postal services and their employees.
>
> Maybe I don't want to. I'm a copyright infringing criminal, remember?
> I might feel bad about stealing music from my favorite artist, but
> that's it! I'm not set to save the world!
>
-----------
No, I wouldn't expect a self-declared criminal to save the world and I don't
recall asking you to do so.
If I buy my CD's (new or used) locally, I am supporting the local record stores
and their employees. Just how someone can make a leap from supporting a
business/employees to saving the world, I don't know.
------
> |Artists without a web site need
> | only walk up to their mailboxes.
>
> Yeah, and find it filed with junk fan mail and pictures of naked male
> devotees...!
>
------------
You seem to have determine what's best for the artists. Who's to say they
wouldn't enjoy getting more fan mail? Part of the glamour in the world of Arts
is the public adulation, isn't it?
Wouldn't a note of appreciation attached to a check do some good once in a while
too? Or is it all about money, money, money?
----
> | Do you think the "donor" site will issue you a
> | refund in case the artist has recently moved to under a nearby
> bridge and can no
> | longer be contacted? I don't think so. OTOH, the post office
> should return
> | mail to you, and in your check won't be cashed in that event.
>
> What makes you emit such a drastic sentence before the site is even
> online? Quite the contrary, a decent web site _will_ make all the
> efforts to ensure the money goes to whom it supposed to, or refund if
> that's impossible. On the other hand the snail mail option is much
> less secure. If the letter is suddenly "lost in the mail" who would
> you sue? A post employee might stack, lets say, one of every ten
> letters for Metallica's "send us more money" PO box. He could then go
> to the bank with some phony papers with the name "Lars Ulrich" and
> ca$h in.
> This sort of things happened so many times, that the most post offices
> don't recommend sending checks with regular mail, but rather use more
> expensive, guaranteed delivery systems.
>
-----------
Things must be different where you live. I pay 90% of my bills by check via
snail-mail and never had to use certified/registered mail for that. If the
check is lost in the mail, I would put a stop payment request with my bank.
Fortunately, I don't recall ever losing a check in the mail. I see no need to
sue anybody.
How can you state that a worker from established postal services might be
dishonest and at the same time suggest that a web site - that's not even online
yet - is going to be decent? Let's say this future web site *will* be decent,
how much money will it need to do all the transactions, paperwork and
record-keeping, not to mention stay current with respect to artists'
whereabouts? If they ever need to keep part of the donations to pay overhead,
can it on average beat a 37-cent stamp?
Don
Stelian
| I doubt that Bruce would even know where the money came from after
it
| cleared his lawyers, accountants and financial advisors. That's
assuming
| the money collected would even get that far - and people are
expected to
| take "on faith" that it will?
That's the hole point, the money get directly into Bruce's account,
not in the hand of greedy lawyers. I'm a free person and I can donate
money to whoever I want. The term 'donate' is a little misleading,
it's actually a gift.
He wouldn't know were the money came; but you will. Once again you
make assumptions about Jake (not Jack, sorry about that). What would
it take to convince you he's an onest person (I'm not convinced
myself)? Like I said in another post, it's like religion, you either
believe it or not, the argument could go on forever.
| > Don't take that literally, they sure make allot more money than
me. I
| > just want to express my support, what's wrong with that?
|
| Don't take it literally? Words can be powerful things, but they
can't turn
| people into mind-readers. Am I to surmise that "they sure make allot
more
| money than" (you) is also figurative then? I have no way of knowing
how
| much you - or they - make.
Obviously I'm not a multimillion dollar pop star or a bank manager
(just think at the odds). Unless stated otherwise, I'm a middle class
man (or woman), making a medium income.
|
| I never said there was anything wrong with wanting to express your
| support - I merely question the manner (and effectiveness) of asking
for
| donations on behalf of artists who *will* get paid according to the
terms
| of their contract.
If you think your favorite performer makes indecent more money than
you, then don't give him more, and continue to pirate his music. I
just want to make sure that my non-mainstream favorite has food for
his children (here I go again with that irony), and not follow a much
more successful career at the dog hound, depriving me of his music.
10$ is not much, but 500 x 10$ is already something for a small name.
|
| Robbie Williams gets his 80 million pounds as announced in the
Press, and
| he's gone on record as saying filesharing/peer-to-peer ("piracy"
according
| to news reports) is a *good* thing. Well, of course he would - what
has he
| got to lose?
I don't think he'll feel the same when nobody will buy his 'art'
anymore.
Soon, I hope.
|
| > | Once again, you're missing the point in what was intended to be
a
| > | bit of sarcasm. If Jake can collect money for those artists he
feels
| > | are being cheated somehow by P2P downloads, then I should be
able
| > | to collect money for anybody I feel is cheated out of a record
deal
| > | simply because they have no talent.
| > | Or for those marginally-talented-but-successfully-marketed
| > | "artists" who over-spent themselves on the *promise* of a big
| > | pay-off that the fine print in a contract guarantees they will
never
| see.
|
| > Why don't you do that?
|
| Because it would be pointless.
Yes, that would be pointless. Jake's idea is not, IMO.
|
| > How does that relate to anything?
|
| It doesn't - I was being sarcastic. How does collecting a few
dollars
| relate to the consumer war the RIAA is waging right now? Will it
ensure you
| can continue to download for free, yet direct your funds to the
artists you
| favour?
It doesn't! If you had read the material on the site, you would know
this has nothing to do with RIAA, or any consumer war. The artist
doesn't have to waive his copyrights, or even agree to file sharing;
he can only get his money.
|
| I don't know who this Jack (or Jake) is, much less trust/distrust
him.
| Nor am I judging "him", just his idea. As for the people who might
use his
| site, I couldn't care less about their motives, in the same manner
that I'm
| not concerned about how *anyone* chooses to spend their money.
However, if
| you're asking ME for cash, then you've got your work cut out for you
in
| convincing me why this this is a good idea.
Well, that's a prerequisite of internet. How do you know who eBay is?
The same things that make eBay have millions of customers, _could_
work for Jake. It's called trust.
| Then broadband providers should be considerably more vocal in their
| opposition to the heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA (ref: Verizon
case,
| pending) since it would appear a LOT of customers will be
unsubscribing if
| high-speed access merely means they can get e-mail spam faster than
ever.
So, what are you saying, internet doesn't have anything to gain from
file sharing? I think it does.
|
| Also, this argument is predicated on the assumption that *everyone*
who
| downloads music ceases to be a consumer at the retail level, and I'm
sorry,
| but that assumption is fallacious reasoning at best.
I never said that. Over 80 % of internet users know what 'kazaa'
means. About 25% use file sharing on regular basis. And the number of
internet user increases exponentially. I know this is RIAA math, and I
know file sharing is not responsible for their 10% sale drop, but can
you guarantee things would never go further form here? I think you
can't. Anyway, it's the principle of the thing, and, as you pointed
out, it covers other forms of piracy also.
|
| Funny how the top-ten best-selling albums at present were widely
available
| on the 'net prior to and after release to the street. Odd how
out-of-print
| albums are considered to be "lost sales" when they are shared among
fans,
| who can't purchase them even though they want to. Talk about your
circular
| logic, but not unexpected from a cartel that claims sales are down
but not
| because they are releasing less product than ever before into the
| marketplace.
Your deviating the discussion on the wrong track. RIAA has nothing to
do with this.
|
| > It like saying 'SARS is not dangerous; it has only killed a few
| > hundred Chinese until now'.
|
| Hardly the best parallel to draw. Downloading music, and making a CD
copy,
| isn't exactly life-threatening. At best, it *might* be
| lifestyle-threatening to those artists who haven't managed to score
the
| platinum-coated contracts afforded a very select few. Perhaps we can
| revisit this argument when everybody in the entire world has a
computer
| with a cd-burner and high-speed Internet access.
The comparison is perfect. Here you go again saying that if a crime is
not committed by enough people, then we can consider it legal. When
everybody in the world will have the means, I doubt there will be any
new music to copy; the sound engineers like to get paid, right?
| 1) It hasn't been established that file-sharing is stealing, or a
crime
| beyond possible copyright infringement. If this matter were
concluded, the
| peer-to-peer plug would have been pulled already.
Your right, sharing is not stealing (obviously), and I was wrong to
make that comparison. But it is a crime. The reason they didn't pulled
the plug is because there is no plug to pull. If they can't go after
the network, that doesn't mean you as an criminal individual, are
safe.
|
| 2) The FBI has no jurisdiction where I live - but should law
enforcement
| officials knock on my door, they had best have a warrant, and if
they have
| a warrant, they best be able to prove that the hard drive they seize
| actually belongs to me.
I didn't caught this one. It's in your computer, on your property.
What do you mean?
| There are some who would say that *having* a contract amounts to a
| prostitution of ideals.
My point exactly.
| However, since you asked for one example:
| http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
The article is much to wide to give it an answer here. There are
things in it I agree with (most of them), and some I don't. Anyway, if
likes to have his music available for download because it increases
the CD sales, he has my blessing. But what if there were no record
companies or CD manufactures; or studios where he can record; or music
stores where to sell them. What will he do if most of them went
bankrupt.( not a bad thing at all IMO). Besides it doesn't cover
artists that don't want to make their music available (it's theirs
after all), but are forced to.
|
| > | By all means support the artists you favour in whatever manner
| > | suits you - but don't ask that others follow your lead because
(in
| > | your opinion) it's "the right thing to do".
|
| > Why don't ask? If you don't want to follow, then simply post your
own
| > thread to alt.terrorism.jihad :"Let's bomb The White House". That
| > would be 'the right thing' in my opinion. I thought everybody has
the
| > right to speak, this is Usenet, right?
|
| I have NO idea what you are getting at with this last statement, as
I never
| suggested that you didn't have a right to speak, on Usenet or
anywhere
| else. However *what* you say may, and often does, get analyzed -
which
| happens in any public forum. Let's just put this down to a synaptic
| misfiring on your part shall we?
No, man. I hate Bush!
| > Possibly, it can't accomplish much. But that's more then nothing.
| > The file sharing is just a side of it, this has to do with
copyright
| > abuse; but I think my friend should make his own donation if he
likes
| > the artist. That's the whole story after all: making music free.
|
| The whole story is making music free? Sorry, not from where I sit.
| It's more about being able to enjoy music (or any entertainment
product)
| without having to pay *each and every time* I hear or view something
that
| just happens to be copyright-controlled by greedy conglomerates
already
| convicted of price-fixing by the Courts.
| And that's just part of the story.
Yes, free to enjoy. If artists could trust this kind of a system in
bringing them enough money, they could drop the labels and the
copyright restriction altogether. Wouldn't you like to have an mp3
with this comment in its idv tag:
This music is free for you to listen, copy and distribute.
However, if you like it, and want to support the author, please make a
small contribution through musicdonor.org or other similar
organizations.
?
Stelian
| What are you talking about?? _What_ is like "comparing snail-mail
with email"?
| I didn't advocate either form of payment. I said it can be done
online or via
| snail mail.
It was my conclusion, after reading your whole post. So I put it in
the top ;)
| > You could pay them online on their site only if they had one. Do
you
| > know how much a complete epayment solution costs? I'm sure Madonna
| > would quickly set one up (that bitch), but smaller artists (about
99%
| > of them) can't afford it. And why have 10.000 epayment sites
instead
| > of just one?
| > This leaves us the snail mail checks ...
| ----------
|
| So... What's your point? I didn't say it *has* to be done online,
or that
| artists must set up an ebusiness site. If they have a site, fine,
pay directly
| online. If not, use regular mail.
I didn't said it has to be online, either. I accepted your regular
mail idea.
|
| ------
| >
| > | Make multiple payments to several artists if you want. It takes
| > much less than 5
| > | minutes to write a check and stuff an envelope.
| >
| > Now really, the _whole_ process (take it to the mail ...) takes
allot
| > more. Why do I have to limit my self to this primitive method of
| > payment? A site (once again, provided that is trustworthy) can
accept
| > mail-checks, but also credit cards, pay-pal ...
| >
| -------------
|
| Paypal and like online payment conveniences require that one of the
parties
| (seller or buyer) pay a percentage of the amount involved.
"Primitive" check
| payments don't involve a third party and only fee would be for
writing a check
| (and then depending on the bank account type, it's free).
Pay pal is bad. Sorry to have brought it up. It can be used only if
the user has an account.
But credit cards are just a much better way to do it. If you like
checks, I'm very happy for you. It's just a mater of personal
preference. And I think most internet users agree with me. Just look
at how many sites accept credit cards. Only a handful of sites like
Amazon or eBay take checks; it's just much more complicated. The check
must be drawn to an American bank, and there is the delivery time
issue. Compare all this with simply punching a few numbers on your
keyboard. No mater what you say, credit card payment is a certain
winner on internet, it's the de facto standard.
|
| --------
| > |Your stamp will also go to
| > | support postal services and their employees.
| >
| > Maybe I don't want to. I'm a copyright infringing criminal,
remember?
| > I might feel bad about stealing music from my favorite artist, but
| > that's it! I'm not set to save the world!
| >
| -----------
|
| No, I wouldn't expect a self-declared criminal to save the world and
I don't
| recall asking you to do so.
| If I buy my CD's (new or used) locally, I am supporting the local
record stores
| and their employees. Just how someone can make a leap from
supporting a
| business/employees to saving the world, I don't know.
From the post system to the local record stores, ey?
I wonder what's next, the whales?
|
| ------
| > |Artists without a web site need
| > | only walk up to their mailboxes.
| >
| > Yeah, and find it filed with junk fan mail and pictures of naked
male
| > devotees...!
| >
| ------------
|
| You seem to have determine what's best for the artists. Who's to
say they
| wouldn't enjoy getting more fan mail? Part of the glamour in the
world of Arts
| is the public adulation, isn't it?
| Wouldn't a note of appreciation attached to a check do some good
once in a while
| too? Or is it all about money, money, money?
Most artist already have post addresses where they can receive fan
mail. This is besides the point. Yes, this topic is about money,
money, how to make it easier for fans to pay them, and how to make
sure the artist receives them in full.
|
| Things must be different where you live. I pay 90% of my bills by
check via
| snail-mail and never had to use certified/registered mail for that.
If the
| check is lost in the mail, I would put a stop payment request with
my bank.
| Fortunately, I don't recall ever losing a check in the mail. I see
no need to
| sue anybody.
Yes, things are different where I live.
|
| How can you state that a worker from established postal services
might be
| dishonest and at the same time suggest that a web site - that's not
even online
| yet - is going to be decent?
I was merely reacting to your accusation of dishonesty, and was trying
to underline the fact that dishonesty can exist anywhere. You had
already stated that the donor site wouldn't issue a refund. How could
you have known this?
| Let's say this future web site *will* be decent,
| how much money will it need to do all the transactions, paperwork
and
| record-keeping, not to mention stay current with respect to artists'
| whereabouts? If they ever need to keep part of the donations to pay
overhead,
| can it on average beat a 37-cent stamp?
The exact same amount it would take to set up you initial address
database alternative.
The idea is not to take money from the artist donations, but to find
an alternative method. Jake has yet to provide a clear way of doing
this.
|
|
| Don
|
|
Don M.
You're mixing things up. As you stated, not all artists can afford to set up an
ebusiness. For those who has one set up, we pay by credit card, Paypal,
whatever. For those who don't, we pay by check & snail-mail. Is that clear
now?
In our discussion we're not buying a product, we're making a donation. Jake is
the middleman, he takes the money and forwards to the artists. Do you think
he'll use credit card? Exactly how do you think he should do it?
---------
> |
> | --------
> | > |Your stamp will also go to
> | > | support postal services and their employees.
> | >
> | > Maybe I don't want to. I'm a copyright infringing criminal, remember?
> | > I might feel bad about stealing music from my favorite artist, but
> | > that's it! I'm not set to save the world!
> | >
> | -----------
> |
> | No, I wouldn't expect a self-declared criminal to save the world and
> I don't
> | recall asking you to do so.
> | If I buy my CD's (new or used) locally, I am supporting the local record
stores
> | and their employees. Just how someone can make a leap from supporting a
> | business/employees to saving the world, I don't know.
>
> From the post system to the local record stores, ey?
> I wonder what's next, the whales?
>
---------
I was talking about supporting a business/employees as a byproduct. You were
talking about not being set to save the world.
-----
> |
> | ------
> | > |Artists without a web site need
> | > | only walk up to their mailboxes.
> | >
> | > Yeah, and find it filed with junk fan mail and pictures of naked male
> | > devotees...!
> | >
> | ------------
> |
> | You seem to have determine what's best for the artists. Who's to say they
> | wouldn't enjoy getting more fan mail? Part of the glamour in the world of
Arts
> | is the public adulation, isn't it?
> | Wouldn't a note of appreciation attached to a check do some good once in a
while
> | too? Or is it all about money, money, money?
>
> Most artist already have post addresses where they can receive fan
> mail. This is besides the point. Yes, this topic is about money,
> money, how to make it easier for fans to pay them, and how to make
> sure the artist receives them in full.
>
>
---------
For artists to receive donations made through Jake's site "in full" means that
Jake gets nothing for doing a lot of work. If he agrees to that and sets up a
verification process whereby he can account for all donations made, I say "go
for it". And yes, we were talking about making it easier to donate. A ready
database will save people from having to do Google searches.
--------
>
> <snip>
> |
> | How can you state that a worker from established postal services might be
> | dishonest and at the same time suggest that a web site - that's not even
online
> | yet - is going to be decent?
>
> I was merely reacting to your accusation of dishonesty, and was trying
> to underline the fact that dishonesty can exist anywhere. You had
> already stated that the donor site wouldn't issue a refund. How could
> you have known this?
>
--------
There was no accusation of dishonesty on my part. That was your assumption.
There are many reasons why Jake wouldn't make refunds. I think he may end up
understaffed as a one-man operation handling all donations from enthusiastic
supporters like yourself (you'll make donations and often, won't you?). It's
not a stretch to think he wouldn't issue refunds. I didn't say he would keep
the non-refunded money either. He could set up a fund for helping starving
artists, donor defense fund, what have you. The dishonesty part is all in your
thinking.
--------
>
> | Let's say this future web site *will* be decent,
> | how much money will it need to do all the transactions, paperwork and
> | record-keeping, not to mention stay current with respect to artists'
> | whereabouts? If they ever need to keep part of the donations to pay
overhead,
> | can it on average beat a 37-cent stamp?
>
> The exact same amount it would take to set up you initial address
> database alternative.
> The idea is not to take money from the artist donations, but to find
> an alternative method. Jake has yet to provide a clear way of doing
> this.
>
> |
-------------------
He *has to* set up a database no matter what, as I stated in my first post. How
else will he know where to forward donations to? I hope he didn't mean to make
a list of donations vs beneficiaries and send it all to the RIAA, etc, for
distribution in a scheme that resembling radio playlists and royalty payments
(whoever radio stations pay).
So no, I'm not factoring the cost of making such database - because it should be
a cost common to any proposals. Jake has to have an initial database, he can't
possibly do a Google search for each donation that comes in - and for nothing,
to meet your "donation in full" scenario. In my alternative, Jake publishes and
maintains the database, people look it up and make direct donations to the
artists and whoever wants can also make a donation to Jake for running the site
and database. Richer artists could make contributions to Jake too just as a
helping gesture towards less fortunate artists. I'm just trying to make things
simple.
Don
Stelian
| You're mixing things up. As you stated, not all artists can afford
to set up an
| ebusiness. For those who has one set up, we pay by credit card,
Paypal,
| whatever. For those who don't, we pay by check & snail-mail. Is
that clear
| now?
Almost none can afford it. This is how the discussion started, to
judge the effectiveness of snail mail checks vs. online credit card
payment.
| In our discussion we're not buying a product, we're making a
donation. Jake is
| the middleman, he takes the money and forwards to the artists. Do
you think
| he'll use credit card? Exactly how do you think he should do it?
|
Just like any of the 100.000 ecomerce sites in the world. SSL has been
around for years now. The fact that there's no product involved is
irrelevant. The issue is how money can be transferred in a cost
effective way.
| I was talking about supporting a business/employees as a byproduct.
You were
| talking about not being set to save the world.
It was a joke; you're alienating the discussion away from supporting
artists to supporting local fish markets. Send 1000 letters a day for
all I care. But don't expect me to share your hobby.
| For artists to receive donations made through Jake's site "in full"
means that
| Jake gets nothing for doing a lot of work. If he agrees to that and
sets up a
| verification process whereby he can account for all donations made,
I say "go
| for it". And yes, we were talking about making it easier to donate.
A ready
| database will save people from having to do Google searches.
|
Lets get one thing straight. I'm not associated with Jake, nor I knew
of his existence until yesterday. I just jumped in his defense on the
(unfounded) presumption that he's an onest guy, just like others
jumped on accusing him of trying to get rich. Now, I might be wrong. I
support his idea ONLY if the artists receive the money in full, I will
have it no other way.
(Don, don't feel the need to answer this; it was not directed at you,
but to anybody reading this thread).
|
| There was no accusation of dishonesty on my part. That was your
assumption.
| There are many reasons why Jake wouldn't make refunds. I think he
may end up
| understaffed as a one-man operation handling all donations from
enthusiastic
| supporters like yourself (you'll make donations and often, won't
you?). It's
| not a stretch to think he wouldn't issue refunds. I didn't say he
would keep
| the non-refunded money either. He could set up a fund for helping
starving
| artists, donor defense fund, what have you. The dishonesty part is
all in your
| thinking.
|
Yes, he might get understaffed, but I guess that's his problem. If you
don't get your 5$ back, that's not a hole in the sky, simply don't
donate anymore. Realistically speaking, to set up such a huge
operation and make no mistakes is absurd.
The part about setting the starving artist account was not in your
initial post either, was it?. You gave me all the reasons to make that
assumption. I'm not a native english speaker, but how else could I
have interpret this :
quote:
Do you think the "donor" site will issue you a
refund in case the artist has recently moved to under a nearby bridge
and can no
longer be contacted? I don't think so.
/quote
That's what I said! That's what I said! He has to set up and mantain
the database anyway, so how could an adress database be more cost
effective overall (domain name, maintenance, the 37c stamps, time lost
by fans etc.) then a bank accounts database, that's what I was asking.
| Jake has to have an initial database, he can't
| possibly do a Google search for each donation that comes in - and
for nothing,
| to meet your "donation in full" scenario. In my alternative, Jake
publishes and
| maintains the database, people look it up and make direct donations
to the
| artists and whoever wants can also make a donation to Jake for
running the site
| and database. Richer artists could make contributions to Jake too
just as a
| helping gesture towards less fortunate artists. I'm just trying to
make things
| simple.
|
Yes things are somewhat simpler in this scenario for Jake, but allot
more complex for the users and artists. Just think at all the
bureaucracy involved in cashing all those checks. Large companies have
employees who deal with it, but small artists would have to waste
their (possibly precious) time standing in line at the bank,
completing millions of formularies for each 5$ check...
Loco Jones
... Loco Jones wrote...
> | I doubt that Bruce would even know where the money came
> | from after it cleared his lawyers, accountants and financial advisors.
> | That's assuming the money collected would even get that far -
> | and people are expected to take "on faith" that it will?
> That's the hole point, the money get directly into Bruce's account,
> not in the hand of greedy lawyers. I'm a free person and I can donate
> money to whoever I want. The term 'donate' is a little misleading,
> it's actually a gift.
Okay, I'm beginning to see the problem here - you don't even understand
what the words you write mean. To "donate" IS to make a gift. Use the
on-line dictionary of your choice if you don't believe me. Also, if you
think that *any* money you wish to give Springsteen is going to somehow
bypass his financial handlers and end up in his account directly, you're
dreaming (and not in colour).
> He wouldn't know were the money came; but you will. Once again you
> make assumptions about Jake (not Jack, sorry about that). What would
> it take to convince you he's an onest person (I'm not convinced
> myself)? Like I said in another post, it's like religion, you either
> believe it or not, the argument could go on forever.
On the contrary - I'm pretty sure if Bruce looked at his monthly financial
statements and saw an amount of money he couldn't account for being there,
he would want to know what was going on. Why do you think he retains a team
of accountants to look after his interests, and lawyers to look after the
accountants? Even at that, artists of his stature have been ripped off by
the people they pay to take care of these things, and I don't think Bruce
is so stupid as to trust them blindly and NOT have a handle on his net
worth/projected earnings.
[As for any argument about Jake's "honesty" - there isn't one - I never
accused him of being dishonest, although since you keep bringing it up (and
admit you aren't convinced yourself of his honesty) then perhaps there IS
something there that needs investigating in this little scheme.]
> | > Don't take that literally, they sure make allot more money than
> | > me. I just want to express my support, what's wrong with that?
> | Don't take it literally? Words can be powerful things, but they
> | can't turn people into mind-readers. Am I to surmise that
> | "they sure make allot more money than" (you) is also figurative
> | then? I have no way of knowing how much you - or they - make.
> Obviously I'm not a multimillion dollar pop star or a bank manager
> (just think at the odds). Unless stated otherwise, I'm a middle class
> man (or woman), making a medium income.
"Obviously"? Nothing you have written so far gives any indication of your
income or employment, but of course, on Usenet you can be whatever you say
you are - people will either believe or disbelieve as they see fit.
Regardless of where you work or what you make, it has nothing to do with
this discussion.
> | I never said there was anything wrong with wanting to express your
> | support - I merely question the manner (and effectiveness) of asking
> | for donations on behalf of artists who *will* get paid according to the
> | terms of their contract.
> If you think your favorite performer makes indecent more money than
> you, then don't give him more, and continue to pirate his music. I
> just want to make sure that my non-mainstream favorite has food for
> his children (here I go again with that irony), and not follow a much
> more successful career at the dog hound, depriving me of his music.
> 10$ is not much, but 500 x 10$ is already something for a small name.
If jumping to conclusions were an olympic sport, you'd be getting the
bronze medal at least. I don't feel I *pirate* anything - I download music
to listen to, and if I like it, I buy it. Call it my "advance back-up
copy".
I also download music to replace what I already own on vinyl and cassette,
but cannot find to purchase at the retail level. Other downloads could be
such things as bonus tracks on limited edition releases also not available
for me to buy.
What I hear that I don't care for, I delete - which makes much more sense
to me than buying an album unheard only to have to sell it at a loss on the
secondary used-cd market. Being an informed consumer is my responsibility
if I don't wish to be taken advantage of.
[If you don't think consumers have been taken advantage of in the past,
read here: http://tinyurl.com/buu6 (Google search on "labels to pay $143
million price fixing case")]
There are many reasons why people enjoy mp3 downloads, and raising the
piracy flag every time this topic comes up is simply disingenuous.
> | Robbie Williams gets his 80 million pounds as announced in the
> | Press, and he's gone on record as saying filesharing/peer-to-peer
> | ("piracy" according to news reports) is a *good* thing. Well, of
> | course he would - what has he got to lose?
> I don't think he'll feel the same when nobody will buy his 'art'
> anymore. Soon, I hope.
He's already been paid. If, like Mariah Carey, his sales fail to live up to
that obscene advance, he will likely be paid even more millions to "go
away".
> | > | Once again, you're missing the point in what was intended to be
> | > | a bit of sarcasm. If Jake can collect money for those artists he
> | > | feels are being cheated somehow by P2P downloads, then I should
> | > | be able to collect money for anybody I feel is cheated out of a
record
> | > | deal simply because they have no talent...
> | > How does that relate to anything?
> | How does collecting a few dollars relate to the consumer war
> | the RIAA is waging right now? Will it ensure you can continue
> | to download for free, yet direct your funds to the artists you
> | favour?
> It doesn't! If you had read the material on the site, you would know
> this has nothing to do with RIAA, or any consumer war. The artist
> doesn't have to waive his copyrights, or even agree to file sharing;
> he can only get his money.
You really don't have much more than a tenuous grasp on reality, do you?
First of all, when it comes to mp3s, internet downloading, and money, the
RIAA is *very much* involved. They (RIAA-member Corporations) own the
copyrights, and whether that artist agrees or disagrees with file-sharing
is of absolutely NO consequence.
The whole idea of "giving money to the artist in appreciation for being
able to download their music" does an end-run around the RIAA and cuts them
out financially - I doubt they are just going to sit back and say... "oh
well, that's just a matter between fan and talent, nothing to do with us".
The Recording Industry does not want to allow mp3 downloads of ANY
description, unless of course they control them and are able to extract a
pay-per-byte fee.
> | I don't know who this Jack (or Jake) is, much less trust/distrust him.
> | Nor am I judging "him", just his idea. As for the people who might
> | use his site, I couldn't care less about their motives, in the same
manner
> | that I'm not concerned about how *anyone* chooses to spend their money.
> | However, if you're asking ME for cash, then you've got your work cut
out
> | for you in convincing me why this this is a good idea.
> Well, that's a prerequisite of internet. How do you know who eBay is?
> The same things that make eBay have millions of customers, _could_
> work for Jake. It's called trust.
I see we're veering off into completely uninformed territory here if you
think that Jake's "send me some money so I can give it to those poor
artists whose music is being downloaded and enjoyed by fans, old and new"
is in ANY way comparable to a business such as e-Bay.
As a business, e-Bay is subject to strict regulatory guidelines, whereas
Jake's idea is little more than a glorified pay-pal scheme built on some
moral/ethical construct that hasn't been fully thought out.
> | Then broadband providers should be considerably more vocal in their
> | opposition to the heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA (ref: Verizon case,
> | pending) since it would appear a LOT of customers will be unsubscribing
> | if high-speed access merely means they can get e-mail spam faster than
> | ever.
> So, what are you saying, internet doesn't have anything to gain from
> file sharing? I think it does.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all - not here, not anywhere in this
thread. I'm sorry you're having such trouble keeping up.
> | Also, this argument is predicated on the assumption that *everyone*
> | who downloads music ceases to be a consumer at the retail level, and
> | I'm sorry, but that assumption is fallacious reasoning at best.
> I never said that. Over 80 % of internet users know what 'kazaa'
> means. About 25% use file sharing on regular basis. And the number of
> internet user increases exponentially. I know this is RIAA math, and I
> know file sharing is not responsible for their 10% sale drop, but can
> you guarantee things would never go further form here? I think you
> can't. Anyway, it's the principle of the thing, and, as you pointed
> out, it covers other forms of piracy also.
Sorry, when people start throwing out unsubstantiated percentages, it's a
sure sign they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. I'd ask where
you got those figures, but I'm afraid it would entail a look in your head,
and that prospect is frightening. If you put such faith in RIAA math, have
a look here: http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html although I doubt
it will make much difference at this stage in your argument.
Also, if you are going to attribute statements to me that I clearly did not
make, your credibility just slips further.
> | Funny how the top-ten best-selling albums at present were widely
> | available on the 'net prior to and after release to the street. Odd how
> | out-of-print albums are considered to be "lost sales" when they are
> | shared among fans, who can't purchase them even though they want to.
> | Talk about your circular logic, but not unexpected from a cartel that
> | claims sales are down but not because they are releasing less product
> | than ever before into the marketplace.
> Your deviating the discussion on the wrong track. RIAA has nothing to
> do with this.
Once again, you are sadly mistaken if you believe this. When you're talking
about mp3s you're talking about something that The Recording Industry Ass.
of America views as currency belonging to THEM, and as far as they're
concerned, the artist is already compensated by way of the terms of a
signed contract. Whether that contract is equitable or not is a different
discussion.
> | > It like saying 'SARS is not dangerous; it has only killed a few
> | > hundred Chinese until now'.
> | Hardly the best parallel to draw. Downloading music, and making a
> | CD copy, isn't exactly life-threatening. At best, it *might* be
> | lifestyle-threatening to those artists who haven't managed to score
> | the platinum-coated contracts afforded a very select few. Perhaps we
> | can revisit this argument when everybody in the entire world has a
> | computer with a cd-burner and high-speed Internet access.
> The comparison is perfect. Here you go again saying that if a crime is
> not committed by enough people, then we can consider it legal. When
> everybody in the world will have the means, I doubt there will be any
> new music to copy; the sound engineers like to get paid, right?
A comparison between SARS and downloading music is "perfect"?
Let me guess - you were never first pick for the high school debating team,
were you? Once more, you're attributing statements to me that I never made,
even by inference ("Here you go again saying that if a crime is not
committed by enough people, then we can consider it legal").
> | 1) It hasn't been established that file-sharing is stealing, or a
> | crime beyond possible copyright infringement. If this matter were
> | concluded, the peer-to-peer plug would have been pulled already.
> Your right, sharing is not stealing (obviously), and I was wrong to
> make that comparison. But it is a crime. The reason they didn't pulled
> the plug is because there is no plug to pull. If they can't go after
> the network, that doesn't mean you as an criminal individual, are
> safe.
Have you followed *any* of the RIAA vs. Napster/Audiogalaxy/etc. debacle?
Also, calling me "a criminal individual" doesn't make me one, and until
such time as I have been tried/convicted in a court of law, I do not
deserve that label.
> | 2) The FBI has no jurisdiction where I live - but should law
> | enforcement officials knock on my door, they had best have a
> | warrant, and if they have a warrant, they best be able to prove
> | that the hard drive they seize actually belongs to me.
> I didn't caught this one. It's in your computer, on your property.
> What do you mean?
Scenario:
One house. One connnection to the Internet. Four occupants. Three
computers. LAN sharing enabled. Who gets charged? The person paying the
ISP? The person who paid for the computer? Or the person (unknown) who had
access to the Net via a computer they may or may not own? Of the files on
the computer, how many are simply fair use copies of legitimately purchased
material?
The seizure of of personal property on the assumption of guilt without
proof is something people in a democratic society have fought long and hard
against. The DMCA-type re-writes of civil liberties won't go unchallenged.
(Ref: http://www.eff.org/ )
> | There are some who would say that *having* a contract amounts to a
> | prostitution of ideals.
>
> My point exactly.
Hardly. You haven't made that point, and you can't co-opt it just because
you like how it sounds.
> | However, since you asked for one example:
> | http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
> The article is much to wide to give it an answer here. There are
> things in it I agree with (most of them), and some I don't. Anyway,
> if likes to have his music available for download because it increases
> the CD sales, he has my blessing. But what if there were no record
> companies or CD manufactures; or studios where he can record; or
> music stores where to sell them. What will he do if most of them
> went bankrupt.( not a bad thing at all IMO). Besides it doesn't cover
> artists that don't want to make their music available (it's theirs
> after all), but are forced to.
Janis Ian is a woman. If that fact escapes you, there's no point in trying
to discuss the issues she raises in her very erudite discourse on the state
of The Industry, and her participation therein as artist/indentured
servant.
> | > | By all means support the artists you favour in whatever manner
> | > | suits you - but don't ask that others follow your lead because
> | > | (in your opinion) it's "the right thing to do".
> | > Why don't ask? If you don't want to follow, then simply post your
> | > own thread to alt.terrorism.jihad :"Let's bomb The White House".
> | > That would be 'the right thing' in my opinion. I thought everybody
> | > has the right to speak, this is Usenet, right?
> | I have NO idea what you are getting at with this last statement, as
> | I never suggested that you didn't have a right to speak, on Usenet
> | or anywhere else.
> | However *what* you say may, and often does, get analyzed -
> | which happens in any public forum. Let's just put this down to a
> | synaptic misfiring on your part shall we?
> No, man. I hate Bush!
What in the world does that have to do with this discussion? If you're
having difficulty staying on topic then perhaps you *should* go rant on
some alt.terrorism group - it's becoming apparent you're doing little more
than shooting from the lip at this point.
> | > Possibly, it can't accomplish much. But that's more then nothing.
> | > The file sharing is just a side of it, this has to do with copyright
> | > abuse; but I think my friend should make his own donation if he
> | > likes the artist. That's the whole story after all: making music
free.
> | The whole story is making music free? Sorry, not from where I sit.
> | It's more about being able to enjoy music (or any entertainment
> | product) without having to pay *each and every time* I hear or view
> | something that just happens to be copyright-controlled by greedy
> | conglomerates already convicted of price-fixing by the Courts.
> | And that's just part of the story.
> Yes, free to enjoy. If artists could trust this kind of a system in
> bringing them enough money, they could drop the labels and the
> copyright restriction altogether.
When you understand how the artist/label dichotomy works, how copyright
works (and who owns/benefits from that) not to mention how the entire
creative/manufacturing/marketing/delivery/airplay/royalty payment
infrastructure works, then maybe you'd be in a position to discuss this
intelligently. As it is, you've demonstrated that you haven't done nearly
enough research on this subject.
> Wouldn't you like to have an mp3
> with this comment in its idv tag:
> This music is free for you to listen, copy and distribute.
> However, if you like it, and want to support the author,
> please make a small contribution through musicdonor.org
> or other similar organizations. ?
No, and I'd wipe that tag. Then what? (rhetorical).
Anyone who hopes for the abolition of the major Record Labels, instead of
looking at a reform of their business model, is extremely short-sighted.
Creative expression depends on this industry to be widely heard - bearing
in mind that not everyone is satisfied with bits of data resulting from a
lossy compression scheme. When there's no new "product" being released, it
should be apparent where that will lead.
They may be evil, but at this point, the RIAA-member cartel is a necessary
evil, until such time as an acceptable replacement emerges and wins favour.
- Loco -
(Now Playing: When The Music's Over - The Doors)
Stelian
Loco Jones <locojo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ba0vgo$n9427$1...@ID-83907.news.dfncis.de...
|
| Okay, I'm beginning to see the problem here - you don't even
understand
| what the words you write mean.
| If jumping to conclusions were an olympic sport, you'd be getting
the
| bronze medal at least.
|
| You really don't have much more than a tenuous grasp on reality, do
you?
| I'm sorry you're having such trouble keeping up.
|
|.... but I'm afraid it would entail a look in your head,
| and that prospect is frightening.
| Also, if you are going to attribute statements to me that I clearly
did not
| make, your credibility just slips further.
|
| Let me guess - you were never first pick for the high school
debating team,
| were you?
| Hardly. You haven't made that point, and you can't co-opt it just
because
| you like how it sounds.
|
| - it's becoming apparent you're doing little more
| than shooting from the lip at this point.
|
| ... then maybe you'd be in a position to discuss this
| intelligently.
| Anyone who hopes for the abolition of the major Record Labels,
instead of
| looking at a reform of their business model, is extremely
short-sighted.
Now, maybe it's just me, but I've counted 11 clear insults.
What's the matter, ran out of arguments!? If this discussion is
evolving into a flame war, then I'm out. All I want is a honest debate
about this Jake's guy idea.
Jake
> Paypal and like online payment conveniences require that one of the parties
> (seller or buyer) pay a percentage of the amount involved. "Primitive" check
> payments don't involve a third party and only fee would be for writing a check
> (and then depending on the bank account type, it's free).
Actually, cheques cann incur a small handling fee, especially for
business accounts. Add that to the cost of the envelope and the stamp
and it adds up. Perhaps 50p for a transaction. Now, the musicdonor.org
idea allows people to pay individual artists extremely small amounts
of money. For example, £1 or even less. But rather than just paying
such a small fee, someone would pay a total of, say, £10 split between
10 different artists. The artists receive their money at the end of
the month from musicdonor.org, rather than directly from the donor.
That way severly small micropayments where most the money goes to the
credit card company can be avoided. See this for more details of the
current idea: http://www.musicdonor.org/viewtopic.php?t=4&highlight=credit
Don M also said...
> How can you state that a worker from established postal services might be
> dishonest and at the same time suggest that a web site - that's not even online
> yet - is going to be decent? Let's say this future web site *will* be decent,
> how much money will it need to do all the transactions, paperwork and
> record-keeping, not to mention stay current with respect to artists'
> whereabouts? If they ever need to keep part of the donations to pay overhead,
> can it on average beat a 37-cent stamp?
The site we're referring to is my site, musicdonor.org - it will
indeed be decent. I will help build confidence in the site through
transparency of transactions etc. It will be a proper registered
company - anyone can ask Companies House (not sure how it works in the
US) for a full financial statement of the company. Nothing can easily
be hidden away deceptively.
The question I'm currently grappling with is whether the company can
be run as a non-profit, a charity, or if it will only work as a
'proper' for-profit company. Ideally, I'd like it to run as an
'official' charity or non-profit. However, if it works out to be too
expensive then it will have to follow the model more of a for-profit
company (unless I can increase my wages from my other business to fund
it, or alternative avenues). However, I'm hoping on support from the
online community to gather enough volunteers to do most the work. If
that can be done, then it can indeed be run as a non-profit.
Jake
Jake
>For artists to receive donations made through Jake's site "in full"
means that
>Jake gets nothing for doing a lot of work. If he agrees to that and
sets up a
>verification process whereby he can account for all donations made, I
say "go
>for it". And yes, we were talking about making it easier to donate.
A ready
>database will save people from having to do Google searches.
Firstly, a note of clarification. Whilst there is currently no
legal-entity separate from myself, 'Jake', when/if the site goes live,
all donations will be made to a proper company 'musicdonor.org
Limitied' or similar. Hopefully, this company will be a 'charity' in
the UK, or apply for 'non-profit' status in the US.
Please see: http://www.musicdonor.org/viewtopic.php?t=4 re the
following...
If someone pays £10 split between 10 artists, £1 each, then let's look
at what actually happens. Say they pay with a credit or debit card -
there is a fee of around 40-50p which goes directly to the credit card
company. It *is* cheaper than paypal/alternatives though, and cannot
currently be avoided. However, by pooling the money through an
intermediary, commission can be reduced.
The alternative would be 10 transactions of £1 each. Each would incur
a fee of around 20-30p, so the total commission would be £2-3 rather
than 40-50p. Hence part of the logic behind having an intermediary
body, and why paypal and others exist.
Of course the more confusing and tricky part will be paying that money
from the intermediary, musicdonor.org, to the artist/whoever
themselves. I suggest this is done at the end of each month where
donations amount to over £10, as micropayments are inherently tricky
and subject to heavy commission. A comprehensive (and extensively
labourious to setup) database is undoubtedly required. If money is to
be paid by cheque/post then it is expensive and can't be automated
very easily. A way to fund this would need to be found - for example
allowing people to donoate money to the site, or through adverts on
the site. There is no intention to take a cut from donations to
artists - I would consider that unfair.
Jake
musicdonor.org
Jake
> The percentage of people who download music and never purchase product at
> retail is infinitesimal compared to the vast marketplace that exists and is
> comprised of people WITHOUT computers/internet access.
But growing. Growing extremley quickly. You can now buy a PC for under
£300 which is smaller than most DVD players, practically silent, and
can hold 80GB of music. As prices continue to fall and PCs get more
living-room-friendly, so this infinitesimal number becomes steadily
bigger.
> Yes, there are inequities in the way the Entertainment Industry conducts
> business - but if the artists themselves aren't willing to band together
> and fight those inequities, then collecting spare change on their behalf
> isn't going to accomplish anything of note. Besides making you feel better
> when you download a song that is. Of course, you really should be sending
> some money to the artist when you make a copy for a friend of a CD you
> bought, no? Or is that somehow different?
Spare change? That's basically what the majority of artists get from
the record companies anyway. Sure, Michael Jackson may earn a few
million for a contract, but only a minority of artists do.
How can the artists band together? Perhaps through this site... once
they see it exists, they join up, they licence their works under
Creative Commons licences and can say 'bye-bye' to their record
company.
Jake
msicdonor.org - can it work logistically?
Jake
> I was trying to point out that the current setup does not provide good
> ways for a debutante to make a name for himself, without the help of
> record labels. It's no use you can find his music over kazaa. One must
> first know what to look for.
Several sites and other entities such as sites and Internet radio
thankfully seem to be trying to help artists out in this way. I'm
considering allowing musicdonor.org to become somewhat of a portal in
this respect too, for example showcasing music etc., but I think its
best left to other sources so that musicdonor.org can focus on the
main task: donations.
Oh, and the name's Jake not Jack :)
Jake.
Jake
> I never said there was anything wrong with wanting to express your
> support - I merely question the manner (and effectiveness) of asking for
> donations on behalf of artists who *will* get paid according to the terms
> of their contract.
I guess part of the idea is to try to change the way the contracts
work in the first place. Try to encourage artists to reject copyright
and instead go for a Creative Commons licence instead, so that their
music truly can be free. Free to listen to and free from the record
companies, who often end up owning the copyright on works the artists
have done.
> Robbie Williams gets his 80 million pounds as announced in the Press, and
> he's gone on record as saying filesharing/peer-to-peer ("piracy" according
> to news reports) is a *good* thing. Well, of course he would - what has he
> got to lose?
Quite. He's got his millions, he doesn't need any more.
> It doesn't - I was being sarcastic. How does collecting a few dollars
> relate to the consumer war the RIAA is waging right now? Will it ensure you
> can continue to download for free, yet direct your funds to the artists you
> favour?
It relates directly to the 'war'. Once artists start giving Creative
Commons style licences to their works, it will become perfectly legal
to download them from p2p networks, and if its totally legal, the RIAA
has no ground to stand on. And artists can continue to use record
companies to sell their music on CDs in the highstreet if the want as
well - releasing works under a Creative Commons licence doesn't
necessarily relinquish you of the right to sell your music if people
are willing to buy it.
> I don't know who this Jack (or Jake) is, much less trust/distrust him.
> Nor am I judging "him", just his idea. As for the people who might use his
> site, I couldn't care less about their motives, in the same manner that I'm
> not concerned about how *anyone* chooses to spend their money. However, if
> you're asking ME for cash, then you've got your work cut out for you in
> convincing me why this this is a good idea.
If artists adopt Creative Commons licences, and you're listening to a
lot of their music for free, it won't necessarily be guilt that
encourages you to give money. It'll be "Thanks - your music's great.
Make some more!" and possibly even "Everyone can listen to your music,
including the poor. But they don't have the money to pay, but I do,
have £2".
> Then broadband providers should be considerably more vocal in their
> opposition to the heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA (ref: Verizon case,
> pending) since it would appear a LOT of customers will be unsubscribing if
> high-speed access merely means they can get e-mail spam faster than ever.
RIAA are within their legal rights to prosecute. It is in their
interest. Doesn't mean its morally/ethically/socially good. For this,
we need to help change people's idea of copyright etc.
> Also, this argument is predicated on the assumption that *everyone* who
> downloads music ceases to be a consumer at the retail level, and I'm sorry,
> but that assumption is fallacious reasoning at best.
There is no such assumption, how did you come to that conclusion? It
does, however, apply to me and several other people I know, and the
number of people is constantly growing. As mentioned above, CDs can
still be sold for those who want/need them.
> Funny how the top-ten best-selling albums at present were widely available
> on the 'net prior to and after release to the street. Odd how out-of-print
> albums are considered to be "lost sales" when they are shared among fans,
> who can't purchase them even though they want to. Talk about your circular
> logic, but not unexpected from a cartel that claims sales are down but not
> because they are releasing less product than ever before into the
> marketplace.
And yet its still illegal to get them on the net. So let's just make
it legal by freeing up copyright, and people will still buy them
because they prefer CDs. Easy!
> Perhaps we can
> revisit this argument when everybody in the entire world has a computer
> with a cd-burner and high-speed Internet access.
We're talking around five years here. So let's start making the
infrastructure (the site) to make it work.
> 1) It hasn't been established that file-sharing is stealing, or a crime
> beyond possible copyright infringement. If this matter were concluded, the
> peer-to-peer plug would have been pulled already.
Crimes are dependent on the law. Law varies between countries. Law is
created and can be changed.
> The whole story is making music free? Sorry, not from where I sit.
> It's more about being able to enjoy music (or any entertainment product)
> without having to pay *each and every time* I hear or view something that
> just happens to be copyright-controlled by greedy conglomerates already
> convicted of price-fixing by the Courts.
> And that's just part of the story.
It is and isn't about making music free. Eventually that's the aim, or
at least giving artists the choice to make their music free, and not
having the copyright on their work belonging to their record company,
or caught up in restrictive contracts.
Jake.
Jake
> That's the hole point, the money get directly into Bruce's account,
> not in the hand of greedy lawyers. I'm a free person and I can donate
> money to whoever I want. The term 'donate' is a little misleading,
> it's actually a gift.
Quite true. But eventually, when they free up the licence on their
works under Creative Commons etc., it does become a donation.
> He wouldn't know were the money came; but you will. Once again you
> make assumptions about Jake (not Jack, sorry about that). What would
> it take to convince you he's an onest person (I'm not convinced
> myself)? Like I said in another post, it's like religion, you either
> believe it or not, the argument could go on forever.
I think if I wasn't honest then I probably wouldn't have posted on
usenet, but would have gone and setup a company and developed it and
patented it etc. By posting the ideas on usenet, in theory anyone can
go and develop the idea themselves now. But if they do so trying to
make a profit, and then someone else can go and make one and not make
a profit, the profit company may tries to sue them. So I can go along
and say: "Sorry guys. I had this idea. We discussed it on usenet in
length. There's historical records. You can't sue anyone. The concept
isn't copyright or patented. Its free. Anyone can develop it.". Yeah?
Basically, if you don' trust me, go and build your own. But if you try
and make a profit from it, and try to stop me making a non-profit one
then, well, you won't be able to. I hope that made sense! :)
> If you think your favorite performer makes indecent more money than
> you, then don't give him more, and continue to pirate his music. I
> just want to make sure that my non-mainstream favorite has food for
> his children (here I go again with that irony), and not follow a much
> more successful career at the dog hound, depriving me of his music.
> 10$ is not much, but 500 x 10$ is already something for a small name.
Quite true. I imagine the original goal of the site will be this.
Then, getting bigger and bigger artists to release their material of
restrictive copyright will come over time.
> I don't think he'll feel the same when nobody will buy his 'art'
> anymore.
> Soon, I hope.
One of the great things about the idea is it stops the super rich
getting richer. People are unlikely to give donations to the super
rich stars. Instead, everyone becomes more equal. And hopefully the
super rich can understand that they don't exactly need more money, and
so allow people to download it free (in the same way as robbie is
pro-p2p)
> It doesn't! If you had read the material on the site, you would know
> this has nothing to do with RIAA, or any consumer war. The artist
> doesn't have to waive his copyrights, or even agree to file sharing;
> he can only get his money.
True, although over time the idea is that the concept of
musicdonor.org will make file sharing music legal. And the only way to
do that is to free up copyright, e.g. with Creative Commons.
> Well, that's a prerequisite of internet. How do you know who eBay is?
> The same things that make eBay have millions of customers, _could_
> work for Jake. It's called trust.
Thanks for continually crediting me for my idea/site. But I would like
to add that eventually, whilst I personally believe I would be ideal
for running such an organisation due to my experience and passions,
the launched site will not be 'jakeg.co.uk' or anything like that. It
will be a separate legal entity, hopefully with me directing/'owning'
it. Most important though is that I would like to see this idea
developed, and *not* in a restrictive way, for example by the RIAA
doing a similar thing in a way to make them even more powerful. I want
to redistribute power, not increase it for the few.
> The reason they didn't pulled
> the plug is because there is no plug to pull. If they can't go after
> the network, that doesn't mean you as an criminal individual, are
> safe.
I agree. There is no technical way to stop file sharing - this is part
of the conceptual need for musicdonor.org:
http://www.musicdonor.org/viewtopic.php?t=2
> Yes, free to enjoy. If artists could trust this kind of a system in
> bringing them enough money, they could drop the labels and the
> copyright restriction altogether. Wouldn't you like to have an mp3
> with this comment in its idv tag:
> This music is free for you to listen, copy and distribute.
> However, if you like it, and want to support the author, please make a
> small contribution through musicdonor.org or other similar
> organizations.
Yes!!! Stelian understands perfectly. Eventually, with the help of
ideas/sites like musicdonor.org and Creative Commons, this is how
music will work. This is the goal, the utopia, the ideal. An
achievable one.
Jake.
musicdonor.org - imagine the possibilities!
Jake
> [As for any argument about Jake's "honesty" - there isn't one - I never
> accused him of being dishonest, although since you keep bringing it up (and
> admit you aren't convinced yourself of his honesty) then perhaps there IS
> something there that needs investigating in this little scheme.]
Please do! There's no better way for things to work than through
thorough transparency. Poke away. Check my personal site, check the
postings and documentation I've made (practially all alone... sniff,
sniff) on musicdonor.org. Search google for my name (Jake Gordon).
Realise I own part of a company etc etc...
> If jumping to conclusions were an olympic sport, you'd be getting the
> bronze medal at least. I don't feel I *pirate* anything - I download music
> to listen to, and if I like it, I buy it. Call it my "advance back-up
> copy".
But its still technically illegal. Doesn't that suck? This is why we
have to make people realise that an alternative financial model is
possible. Then music can relieve itself of restrictive copyright, and
downloading music becomes legal.
> There are many reasons why people enjoy mp3 downloads, and raising the
> piracy flag every time this topic comes up is simply disingenuous.
But unforutnately its the legal reality. Copyright restricts it. So
let's chane copyright.
> You really don't have much more than a tenuous grasp on reality, do you?
> First of all, when it comes to mp3s, internet downloading, and money, the
> RIAA is *very much* involved. They (RIAA-member Corporations) own the
> copyrights, and whether that artist agrees or disagrees with file-sharing
> is of absolutely NO consequence.
Very true. So change it :)
> The whole idea of "giving money to the artist in appreciation for being
> able to download their music" does an end-run around the RIAA and cuts them
> out financially - I doubt they are just going to sit back and say... "oh
> well, that's just a matter between fan and talent, nothing to do with us".
>
> The Recording Industry does not want to allow mp3 downloads of ANY
> description, unless of course they control them and are able to extract a
> pay-per-byte fee.
Making donations through musicdonor.org will, indeed, not make
downloading music any more legal. But it will change the way people
think, make them realise that an alternative is possible, and this
will get the music industry very, very worried. There's bound to be a
confrontation as they try to defend their own interests. But
hopefully, they'll lose, and freedom will win.
> I see we're veering off into completely uninformed territory here if you
> think that Jake's "send me some money so I can give it to those poor
> artists whose music is being downloaded and enjoyed by fans, old and new"
> is in ANY way comparable to a business such as e-Bay.
I can see where comparisons can be made. Its a method of being an
intermediary body, taking money from A to give to B. Payment methods
will be similar. The comparison ends there.
> As a business, e-Bay is subject to strict regulatory guidelines, whereas
> Jake's idea is little more than a glorified pay-pal scheme built on some
> moral/ethical construct that hasn't been fully thought out.
Its being thought out here, in usenet, as we speak. And as a business
which it'll eventually have to be (hopefully non-profit), it wil of
course be subject to strict regulatory guidelines. Yes, its like pay
pal, but specifically for the purpose of the music industry.
> When you understand how the artist/label dichotomy works, how copyright
> works (and who owns/benefits from that) not to mention how the entire
> creative/manufacturing/marketing/delivery/airplay/royalty payment
> infrastructure works, then maybe you'd be in a position to discuss this
> intelligently. As it is, you've demonstrated that you haven't done nearly
> enough research on this subject.
If anyone, that comment should be directed at me, not Stelian, since
surely its me who should have done the research? And part of that
research is this - on usenet - looking for people's opinions and
ideas, areas of possible problems etc. I understand fairly well how
the industry works. By dad worked for BMG for years as a copyright
royalties manager. He can bring me a wealth of knowledge on the
subject. But its also important to sometimes question the way things
work, understand why they work like thy do, and then find out if they
can work better some other way. As I've said before, the industry
hasn't always been like this. It changes, it morphs.
> Anyone who hopes for the abolition of the major Record Labels, instead of
> looking at a reform of their business model, is extremely short-sighted.
> Creative expression depends on this industry to be widely heard - bearing
> in mind that not everyone is satisfied with bits of data resulting from a
> lossy compression scheme. When there's no new "product" being released, it
> should be apparent where that will lead.
I agree that record companies will try their damned hardest to stay
alive, to make a profit. That's what companies do. I do not believe
that within a year of launch all music companies will be filing their
chapter 11s. But at the very least, the site, the idea, can help
reform them. By showing them what's possible if they don't change
their ways, they realise its in their best interests to change. And if
they don't, well, then perhaps they do become extinct... but that's
not going to happen. Realistically, i think they'll reform and their
power will diminish.
> They may be evil, but at this point, the RIAA-member cartel is a necessary
> evil, until such time as an acceptable replacement emerges and wins favour.
They're not necessarily evil, they're just following the rules of a
company. The primary aim is to make a profit. That's what they're
trying to do. We have to show them that they can't make a profit any
more, that the artist doesn't need them so much.
Jake.
musicdonor.org - an idea, a concept, a reality?
Jake
> I think it's a good idea but as others have said this would need to be
> totally above board with full contact details and access to accounts. If you
> set up a limited company AFAIK everyone has the right to view your accounts
> after submission to Co. House.
I've commented re. companies house etc. in another post already.
Transparency. That's where the trust is.
> What percentage would you envisage as an administration fee? As you could
> not run this service on thin air.
In order to reduce costs, the idea is to rally the online community to
help out as volunteers. If costs can be kept low, then I can fund the
project out of my own pocket, and of course also ask for donations on
the site. The idea is not to take a cut of artist donations though -
but of course credit card companies will. I see no way to avoid that.
If donations and my own funding are not enough, and/or I can't rally
enough volunteer support (particularly from techie 'geeks' to help me
program it etc) then adverts are one other option. However, I
personally hate adverts, and would prefer to avoid them. They make
people buy things which they otherwise wouldn't buy, making life more
expensive. If adverts were absolutely necessary, they'd be reduced to
a minimum to balance the cashflow.
> How would you determine who should receive the funds? Artists individually
> or the record company.
A very tricky one, and I'm not entirely sure yet. At first, i think
the ability to choose would be important. That is, the ability for the
artist to choose and also the donor. So if the artist has choosen to
allow both, then it will be up to the donor to choose which one. e.g.
artist allows payments to themselves and also the record company, but
the donor chooses the artist. perhaps also in making payments the
donor will say which song/album the donation is specifically for, or
if it is just a 'thanks' in general.
> What benefits would donors gain? Apart from the obvious.
Funding an alternative which can eventually legitimize file sharing by
releasing restrictive copyright on music. Funding music which they
like. Using their collective consumer power to take on big companies.
> Do you really feel people would donate?
I don't think a lot of people would to begin with, no. But i think
that over time they would. But perhaps more importantly, the fact of
the site's existence would make people realise that an alternative is
possible, and viable. And perhaps new artists would, rather than
signing big contracts with big companies, instead release their work
through a Creative Commons licence, and try to make money through
donations. I think they'd like the feeling of not being a sell out.
> Do you think record companies etc would allow this based on the premise that
> it would legitimise to a certain degree blatant piracy?
That would be their argument. But the counter-argument is that the
site would not claim to legitimize file-sharing copyright work. Its
aim is to legitimize file-sharing through reducing restrictive
copyright. I the site does not claim "by paying money, you're actually
legally allowed the music" then I don't see how the record companies
could possibly have a leg to stand on. Surely there's no law against
giving money to someone?! And if the site does not pass on the details
of the name/address of the donors then the record companies can't
track down and prosecute the illegal file sharers. Hence one need for
an intermediary body.
> Again a good idea but so many variables and the time to administrate and run
> such a service would be huge.
I agree. Hence why I need some volunteers, particularly expert LAMP
(linux/apache/mysql/php) programmers (such as myself... but its not a
one man job and I'd prefer to do the admin/publicity rather than
programming). As I've said, if volunteers can't be found, then
sacrifices such as displaying adverts will have to be made.
And if you are a volunteer, or think you might want to, please do pop
over to http://www.musicdonor.org/ and read the documentation and
posts I've made there and let me know you're interested!
> Good luck!
Thanks for your luck - I may need it! ;)
Stelian
| > That's the hole point, the money get directly into Bruce's
account,
| > not in the hand of greedy lawyers. I'm a free person and I can
donate
| > money to whoever I want. The term 'donate' is a little misleading,
| > it's actually a gift.
|
| Okay, I'm beginning to see the problem here - you don't even
understand
| what the words you write mean. To "donate" IS to make a gift. Use
the
| on-line dictionary of your choice if you don't believe me
I've used my bad joke dictionary instead:
- Dad, I can hardly wait, what's my present?
- A human kidney son. I know you've always wanted one.
- You're the best daddy in the hole wide world!
| Also, if you
| think that *any* money you wish to give Springsteen is going to
somehow
| bypass his financial handlers and end up in his account directly,
you're
| dreaming (and not in colour).
| On the contrary - I'm pretty sure if Bruce looked at his monthly
financial
| statements and saw an amount of money he couldn't account for being
there,
| he would want to know what was going on. Why do you think he retains
a team
| of accountants to look after his interests, and lawyers to look
after the
| accountants? Even at that, artists of his stature have been ripped
off by
| the people they pay to take care of these things, and I don't think
Bruce
| is so stupid as to trust them blindly and NOT have a handle on his
net
| worth/projected earnings.
I have never said that he would magically find himself the owner of a
brand new BMW, not knowing were the money came. I said that he
wouldn't
know where the _individual_ 5 and 10$ amounts would come, because they
would be centralized in a single payment, but your conscience would be
clear (not yours, mine; I don't care about you). Of curse it must be
completely legal, and of curse Bruce will end up paying tax for it, I
never implied otherwise, it is called money laundry. If he wants his
accountant to handle it, it's his business. But the label with which
he
signed has absolutely no power whatsoever on that money. The
donations are not made to Metallica the band that released the 'X'
track, under label Y (unless the donor specifically wants that); they
are made to Lars Ulrich, a very nice
individual, that I met yesterday.
|
| [As for any argument about Jake's "honesty" - there isn't one - I
never
| accused him of being dishonest, although since you keep bringing it
up (and
| admit you aren't convinced yourself of his honesty) then perhaps
there IS
| something there that needs investigating in this little scheme.]
Sure it is. I just start from the presumption of "innocent until
proven guilty", that's all.
| "Obviously"? Nothing you have written so far gives any indication of
your
| income or employment, but of course, on Usenet you can be whatever
you say
| you are - people will either believe or disbelieve as they see fit.
| Regardless of where you work or what you make, it has nothing to do
with
| this discussion.
Glad you finally accepted this.
| If jumping to conclusions were an olympic sport, you'd be getting
the
| bronze medal at least. I don't feel I *pirate* anything - I download
music
| to listen to, and if I like it, I buy it. Call it my "advance
back-up
| copy".
Save your grammatical irony for alt.english.syntactic.
I try my best to express my ideas in english. If something is not
clear, let my know, and I'd be happy to give you more details, and
correct any mistakes. If I don't understand quite right something you
write, also let my know.
If I cannot reach (up) to your intellectual level with my posts, then
simply ignore the trolls. But please, please don't use your
grammatical superiority to
demonstrate your ideological superiority; that's pure nazi-speak.
|
| I also download music to replace what I already own on vinyl and
cassette,
| but cannot find to purchase at the retail level. Other downloads
could be
| such things as bonus tracks on limited edition releases also not
available
| for me to buy.
|
| What I hear that I don't care for, I delete - which makes much more
sense
| to me than buying an album unheard only to have to sell it at a loss
on the
| secondary used-cd market. Being an informed consumer is my
responsibility
| if I don't wish to be taken advantage of.
|
I couldn't care less about your consumer habits. They are irrelevant
to the discussion.
| [If you don't think consumers have been taken advantage of in the
past,
| read here: http://tinyurl.com/buu6 (Google search on "labels to pay
$143
| million price fixing case")]
|
| There are many reasons why people enjoy mp3 downloads, and raising
the
| piracy flag every time this topic comes up is simply disingenuous.
I'm not talking about piracy, or mp3s. I'm talking about giving
money to my favorite artist, even if I own all the CDs he ever made.
Is that Ok, or do you still have something to add?
Refer to the top of this post. If the money are donated in such a
legal fashion that they don't link to the track name, artistic scene
name, in other words, all the things the label has copyright on, what
can they do? I never said they'll like it or support it, it definitely
working against them, freeing the artist community. But there's
nothing
they can do to stop it, except from DoS-ing the site that is.
It's like suing your employee because he won the lottery. Please give
me the legal grounds that RIAA can call upon to have a case.
| I see we're veering off into completely uninformed territory here if
you
| think that Jake's "send me some money so I can give it to those poor
| artists whose music is being downloaded and enjoyed by fans, old and
new"
| is in ANY way comparable to a business such as e-Bay.
|
| As a business, e-Bay is subject to strict regulatory guidelines,
whereas
| Jake's idea is little more than a glorified pay-pal scheme built on
some
| moral/ethical construct that hasn't been fully thought out.
For the site to work it has to be set up as a non profit organization,
obeying the very same laws that eBay does. Jake has shown all
intention to do just that, and once again, you have failed to read his
statements thoroughly before starting this discussion.
A non profit organization has even more strict laws to obey than a
commercial corporation.
|
| > | Then broadband providers should be considerably more vocal in
their
| > | opposition to the heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA (ref: Verizon
case,
| > | pending) since it would appear a LOT of customers will be
unsubscribing
| > | if high-speed access merely means they can get e-mail spam
faster than
| > | ever.
|
| > So, what are you saying, internet doesn't have anything to gain
from
| > file sharing? I think it does.
|
| No, that's not what I'm saying at all - not here, not anywhere in
this
| thread. I'm sorry you're having such trouble keeping up.
In case you have a problem with the character set I use, that was a
question. You know, "?" = asci 0x3f. Stop telling me what you are not
saying, and say something, anything.
| Sorry, when people start throwing out unsubstantiated percentages,
it's a
| sure sign they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. I'd
ask where
| you got those figures, but I'm afraid it would entail a look in your
head,
| and that prospect is frightening. If you put such faith in RIAA
math, have
| a look here: http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html although I
doubt
| it will make much difference at this stage in your argument.
These numbers are approximate, based on RIAA's declarations (I think
I made that clear: "riaa math", remember? The real numbers can be
smaller or bigger). If you don't believe me lock it up on RIAA's site,
and get the exact numbers. The real story was how downloading are not
a part of the big picture, but are going to be soon, and you are
once again trying to put the discussion on the wrong track.
The link you provided does not give any estimation about the future
growth of downloading, that's what I was asking.
Anyhow why do you keep providing links instead of ideas of your own,
or
at least good ideas presented by yourself? If you're tired of typing
tell me and
I'll give you a break, but don't come to me with quotes from Albert
Einstein's work.
|
| Also, if you are going to attribute statements to me that I clearly
did not
| make, your credibility just slips further.
Oh, but you did:
quote
Of course, you really should be sending
some money to the artist when you make a copy for a friend of a CD you
bought, no? Or is that somehow different?
/quote
Remember now?
Don't you just love this guy, how he keeps taking his words back,
instead of admitting he is wrong from time to time?
| > Your deviating the discussion on the wrong track. RIAA has nothing
to
| > do with this.
|
| Once again, you are sadly mistaken if you believe this. When you're
talking
| about mp3s you're talking about something that The Recording
Industry Ass.
| of America views as currency belonging to THEM, and as far as
they're
| concerned, the artist is already compensated by way of the terms of
a
| signed contract. Whether that contract is equitable or not is a
different
| discussion.
I'm _not_ talking about mp3s, oggs or anything else. Refer up.
|
| A comparison between SARS and downloading music is "perfect"?
| Let me guess - you were never first pick for the high school
debating team,
| were you? Once more, you're attributing statements to me that I
never made,
| even by inference ("Here you go again saying that if a crime is not
| committed by enough people, then we can consider it legal").
You just don't want to accept that copyright infringement is a felony,
let alone a serious one. Maybe it's not in your country (It will be
soon thou, if that country's name is Iraq :). But it is in mine, and
most of the world.
Is it right to be that way? Are there enough reasons for that? I don't
know, nor I want to discus that now.
Is this gonna change anytime soon? Jake seems to think so. I say this
is more like 50 years or so from now, but I could be wrong.
(I use 0x3f here in a rhetorical manner)
| Have you followed *any* of the RIAA vs. Napster/Audiogalaxy/etc.
debacle?
Have YOU followed any of the RIAA vs. Sherman Networks/Grokster recent
debacle, with the court sentence and everything? It seems your a few
years behind with the news, younger people don't even know what
Napster means.
| Also, calling me "a criminal individual" doesn't make me one, and
until
| such time as I have been tried/convicted in a court of law, I do not
| deserve that label.
I didn't mean you, Mr. Jones (as I said before, you existence is
irrelevant to me), but also me, and all those who download. Anybody
_except_ you if you like. I also download. I also risk getting caught
at
it. If artists feel they will soon get poor because of this, they will
try their best to put me in jail, helping the labels. But if they feel
we're in this together against the labels, it already a won war, from
were I stand. I think such a system could convince them; OTH you gave
me the sensation you don't think so :).
I don't care If Robby f*** Wiliams will like this. I don't care if
Metallica will. If only one of the artists I listen to will make his
music available for free, that would be a great thing IMO. This
doesn't have to put down the industry to work. It also affects artists
differentially. An artist that makes techno or whatever internet geeks
are listening to these days, is much more harmed by illegal downloads,
and thus has much more to gain from switching to this system, than,
let's say, who ever has copyright for Chuck Berry's work, which has
nothing to gain by switching. In the case of Chuck Berry, most fans
already have the albums, and who would pay to support his relatives?
(It's just a random name, but I doubt he's still alive, he sang in the
'50s or so)
| Scenario:
| One house. One connnection to the Internet. Four occupants. Three
| computers. LAN sharing enabled. Who gets charged? The person paying
the
| ISP? The person who paid for the computer? Or the person (unknown)
who had
| access to the Net via a computer they may or may not own? Of the
files on
| the computer, how many are simply fair use copies of legitimately
purchased
| material?
That's plain stupid, to put it simple. What are you going to do, blame
you're friends or relatives for your actions? You can be sure the
officials would find somebody to imprison, even if he's not the
perpetrator. Do you really think you could dodge this by passing the
guilt around? This plan is stupid and immature.
(Now, don't start insulting me again; I'm not saying You are stupid
and immature; I don't know you. But some of the things you say are
that way.)
No mater how many legally mp3s you have, you will be accused for that
single one you don't own a CD for, and was downloaded last night from
RIAA's peer.
|
| The seizure of of personal property on the assumption of guilt
without
| proof is something people in a democratic society have fought long
and hard
| against. The DMCA-type re-writes of civil liberties won't go
unchallenged.
They do, for some years now is many countries.
| > My point exactly.
|
| Hardly. You haven't made that point, and you can't co-opt it just
because
| you like how it sounds.
Aren't you the smooth speaker. You have no idea what I think or what
my motives are. Why don't you run for mayor? I'd vote you.
|
| Janis Ian is a woman. If that fact escapes you, there's no point in
trying
| to discuss the issues she raises in her very erudite discourse on
the state
| of The Industry, and her participation therein as artist/indentured
| servant.
Ok, that was a major slip from my side, and unlike you, I admit my
mistakes. One point for you: Loco 1 - Stelian 14.
Bear in mind that most of the article is written at the first person,
and also that I can't make a difference easy between uncommon names.
What to you may seem obviously a woman's name, for me is just neutral.
Chu Xiang is a male or a female? I sure don't know.
That being said, how about going to http://www.theholybible.org, if
you like links so much. That should keep you busy for a while.
You have no sense of humor.
There has not been a single thing I have said, without out you
splitting it four ways, and denigrate each and every phrase. I'm sure
I don't poses the universal truth, but I can't be that wrong. Maybe
you had a troublesome childhood? I can understand if you feel the need
to contradict everybody.
The hole Bush (which I hate :) and terrorism thing was a hoax. I
wanted to prove to you, in a humoristic manner, that I can advocate
for any cause that I find "the right thing to do", as you put it.(And
so does Jake). You can't deny my right to do so simply because IYO is
not.
quote
... but don't ask that others follow your lead
because (in your opinion) it's "the right thing to do".
/quote
I _have_ the right to ask anybody anything as long as it is legal; and
even if it's not, on Usenet. Your idea is recursive. It denies your
the right to post, because this single gesture is like asking people
to read you post and understand it, because IYO that's the right
thing. I not sure I got through to you with this, but anyway feel free
to split four ways and flame me.
| When you understand how the artist/label dichotomy works, how
copyright
| works (and who owns/benefits from that) not to mention how the
entire
| creative/manufacturing/marketing/delivery/airplay/royalty payment
| infrastructure works, then maybe you'd be in a position to discuss
this
| intelligently. As it is, you've demonstrated that you haven't done
nearly
| enough research on this subject.
You sure make me keep my dictionary close. Yes, I understand perfectly
what the "relationships" in the industry are. How do you know who I
am, and how much research I've made? I could be the fringeen RIAA for
all you know. Or I could be involved in it exactly at the airplay
level you mention.
The fact is that I can see no other alternative _but_ labels involved
in making and distributing video clips, especially for new comers.
Just as I can't see it work for the movie industry. The initial
investment is way to high for any artist no mater how many donations
he would receive. Manufacturing CD is in the same category, there must
be somebody who can take the risk if the lot is not sold, and it cant
be the factory.
|
| > Wouldn't you like to have an mp3
| > with this comment in its idv tag:
| > This music is free for you to listen, copy and distribute.
| > However, if you like it, and want to support the author,
| > please make a small contribution through musicdonor.org
| > or other similar organizations. ?
|
| No, and I'd wipe that tag. Then what? (rhetorical).
Yes, and by doing so you wont break any law. The law that you can
break now by simply having the mp3 on your machine, with or without
tag.
|
| Anyone who hopes for the abolition of the major Record Labels,
instead of
| looking at a reform of their business model, is extremely
short-sighted.
| Creative expression depends on this industry to be widely heard -
bearing
| in mind that not everyone is satisfied with bits of data resulting
from a
| lossy compression scheme. When there's no new "product" being
released, it
| should be apparent where that will lead.
|
| They may be evil, but at this point, the RIAA-member cartel is a
necessary
| evil, until such time as an acceptable replacement emerges and wins
favour.
Who said anything about abolition? I'm not saying that wont happen,
eventually. But not in the near future. Not in my lifetime that is. I
said I'd like that, there is difference.
What is great about the system is that it can work without abolishing
any existent institution. Please take a look at open source. These
guys have proven that the freedom is an alternative. I don't want to
start the discussion about who's better, M$ or Linu$. But it has
proven even to M$ that the alternative exists. As you will haply
argue, there are many differences between software and music. The
biggest one is that software takes almost nothing to produce; it only
requires man-hours and ambition from the individuals; music on the
hand is much more pretentious. If you play with a shity guitar, the
music will sound like shit, no doubt about it. This is were donations
come in. Unlike software, who gives you just a feeling of work well
done, the music acts at a much deeper level. The artist is
communicating ideas, feelings. It has a much larger power to make you
fork the money, in the end. Is the ultimate money-back guarantee. If
the artist didn't reach to you, or if your simply rotten inside and
can't appreciate his work, you pay nothing (not you, me). Those guys
have proven it can work without _any_ money involved.
The ineternet is one of the gratest inventions of all time; if it had
such a powerful impact on software, why can't it do the same thing for
music? Artist at the same level of enlightenment with open sourcers
exist (many of them), it's not like all of them are just for money,
money. Money are nice thou. This system will not make them rich, but
it will guarantee they can keep doing what they like, fell happy, and
make others happy while they are at it. Creative expression does not
depend of the industry in any way, other than financially. If me as a
radio DJ will have the right to put on air any music I like, and
anything my listeners like, instead of just what the station director
has clearance for, how will that impact on creative expression (or the
way it can be heard)? In a good way, IMO. I still can air the crap the
industry decides to "promote", but I have the option not to. And
economically speaking, I have no reason to pay the royalties that
support their bureaucracy, if (and only if) I can get the same or
better quality for free.
Music doesn't have to be a "product" as you put it. What will happen
if no "products" are released? Simple: that will stop the noise, so
real artist can be heard, instead of those who are willing to get
f**** in the a** by the labels for an extra piece of meat. It
certainly wont put a cork on the creativity of artist who want to make
music. Or maybe do you think that creativity goes like this: <<dam, I
must buy me a new Mercedes; well I'll better head towards the
studio...>>? It may go like this for Brittney Spears and Co, but it
sure didn't went like this for any real artist.
As for the lossy compression part, I don't find any reason why you
can't share 320 kbps mp3s. Share lossles .flacs at 96khz if you like,
this is pointless, or will be in a few years judging by the rate IT
technology evolves. Just to give you an idea, the standard in the
radio business is 256Kbps, far from perfect, but any further quality
will get squashed by the old FM analog transmitter-receiver system.
|
| - Loco -
| (Now Playing: When The Music's Over - The Doors)
Maybe there are chances for you after all.
Loco Jones
... Loco Jones wrote...
< snip my own not-unfounded observations >
> Now, maybe it's just me, but I've counted 11 clear insults.
Not quite, but congratulations, you can *almost* count. Get a handle on
your A-B-C-'s and that ICS Diploma just might be within your reach.
> What's the matter, ran out of arguments!?
On the contrary, to argue with you would presume you have a point of view,
instead of just a pointed head. I merely posted my opinion based on what
you wrote.
> If this discussion is evolving into a flame war, then I'm out.
Hardly a flame war... but by all means, adhere to your words - oh, wait!
you can't, can you? I see you've returned to regale the Newsgroups with
more of your ill-informed ranting... so, you're not *really* "out" of
anything are you? (well, okay, except maybe ideas, reason, rational
thought, logic...)
> All I want is a honest debate about this Jake's guy idea.
If anyone believed that for one moment, and didn't suspect you were an
unsupported sock-puppet then you *might* have some credibility. Guess what?
You don't... at least, as far as I'm concerned - and it IS me you seem to
have issues with, isn't it?
I really don't care to fight with you - or anyone for that matter - I
merely took exception to your inital comments/attitude that appeared to be
aimed in my direction. But do take notice that I have never backed down
from a confrontation - regardless of the adversary (worthy or not).
Are you sure you want to play Usenet pugilist with me?
Now might be a good time to leave the ring - with some semblance of honour
intact.
- Loco -
(Now Playing - I'm Still Standing - Elton John)
Stelian
|
| Hardly a flame war...
<<Never fight with pigs. You get covered with mud, and they are
enjoying it.>>
Phil Warren
this channel, let them sign up to receive the payments. If they don't sign
up, then you can't donate to them. Of course there would have to be mutual
privacy protection: The artists don't want you to be spamming them with
email, and the users don't want to worry that the artists will come after
them for downloading their music illegitimately.
"Stelian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:b9tn39$n98a1$1...@ID-194487.news.dfncis.de...
> This is hardly an alternative. Most artist have no clue about web
> design and online payment , so you'd have to send checks, or maybe go
> to the bank and make a transfer to the artist's account. What if I
> want to make multiple payments to various artists ?(who is this
> Various guy anyway?) I don't see myself carrying around a long list
> with banks and accounts numbers. Made any 5$ transfers lately?
> To draw a line, the donor must be highly motivated to do all this.
> Compare this to visiting an internet site, selecting the artist, and
> simply inserting your credit card number (assuming you can trust the
> site :)), all in 5 minutes max.