Significance of TPB seen through history.

[monomer]

So...

When the gramophone was invented, performing artists protested that they would not make any money off of performing.
When radio became available all hope seemed lost.

When cinema was invented the theatre crew thought that it would drive people from plays and they would be without jobs.

Then TV came and gave the cinema people a big scare.

Then we got to have audio and video recording systems right in our own houses.
Both audio and video folks said the world would end, altho theatres and live performers had re-found their niche.

It seems that technology has been changing production, transportation and consumption of media for well over a century.

Now we are confronted with another change in the way ideas are transffered between people.
We have the internet.

Hordes of artists are scared shitless.

How will we handle this change (both as producers and consumers)?
In what form will the industry survive the current technological advancements?
Who will be the winners, who will be the losers?

[aof21]

Nice! Excellent point.

[claend]

You're completely right!!

Music is here forever! t's a market change, and publishers, labels etc, will loose a part of the cake if they can't adapt...

What can I do as a musician/producer/engineer to find myposition?

That's the point!!!

[bleepbleep]

the big difference, and i cant stress the importance enough, is that as each new meduim/zeitgeist came along and apparently 'threatened' the old structure, it actually brought a new way for artists and creative people to get paid for their work - directly -

torrents, file sharing and do not create any direct revenue streams -
and this is what the controvesy is about,

its not that its something new, its that it is something that takes without giving back directly.....

meditate on that.....

[monomer]

Originally Posted by bleepbleep

the big difference, and i cant stress the importance enough, is that as each new meduim/zeitgeist came along and apparently 'threatened' the old structure, it actually brought a new way for artists and creative people to get paid for their work - directly -

torrents, file sharing and do not create any direct revenue streams -
and this is what the controvesy is about,

its not that its something new, its that it is something that takes without giving back directly.....

meditate on that.....

I dont think that your statement is true.

None of the changes i mentioned alowed the artists to get payed more directly.
If you look at the change from theatre to cinema you can see that:

-Artists do not get payed directly after the performance anymore. They perform only once (and in the beginning were therefore payed only once, during recording) while the material could be replayed many times. This is very different from live performance.

-A whole new industry arose around the technology of cinema and the people working there needed to be payed as well. Making cinema costs more than making a play.

-New ways of paying artists was needed to compensate the artists on different basis than the performance itself. This is because in cinema, there is only one performance done by the artists which is then reproduced mechanicaly.

Same thing happened when radio and later tv came to the scene.
Things got twisted around and more middle men were introduced.

In fact, the big change this time around is that artists can get payed almost directly once more!
This is because production costs became much lower and the distribution became ultra cheap.
People do not need to pay that much to the 'in between' people that were needed to bring their ideas to the masses in the past.

[bleepbleep]

@monomer - when i say directly, i mean through the sale/exploitation of the stuff they created - also via the people who employed them to create or license their creative efforts -

currently - torrents/illegal downloading does not support the artist directly, although some argue that their are indirect consequences

btw - read your own answer again,

each point you make actually states that as each new format came along, it actually generated more income/revenue than the previous format -
which is my point exactly -

as in - cinema costs a lot more to makes than a play, and a whole new wealth of technology was involved, this stimulates more growth and business and results in more cash being circulated - faster than before -

also - in fact - in cinema - people get paid before the film gets shown - this goes all the way down the line - from actors, to technical crew, to post production to musicians ect - in fact the only people that have to wait to recoup are the studio/producers and capitol investment guys

if you look at some of your other points you can expand on this and see, as every new wave of format and technology comes along - it creates more jobs and more income streams -
i agree with you on one point though - it does get more complicated, and requires more 'non-artists' to get paid for the whole process . but this is not really a bad thing - as some do a good job and make the whole process better....

[monomer]

Originally Posted by bleepbleep

@monomer - read your own answer again,

each point you make actually states that as each new format came along, it actually generated more income/revenue than the previous format -
which is my point exactly -

It obviously had to because the product became more expensive.
The payment of the artists however became a smaller and smaller percentage of the total income.

as in - cinema costs a lot more to makes than a play, and a whole new wealth of technology was involved, this stimulates more growth and business and results in more cash being circulated - faster than before -

Sure, and now we are at a point that the price of the technology is very low and the need for specialist in between technicalities has declined.
As an artist, you can create and sell your art and keep most of the eranings!

Also, it's those 'in the middle' people that are whining the most it seems.

also - in fact - in cinema - people get paid before the film gets shown - this goes all the way down the line - from actors, to technical crew, to post production to musicians ect - in fact the only people that have to wait to recoup are the studio/producers and capitol investment guys

But this is not nessesary anymore.
That is my point.
You seem to think otherwise..?

if you look at some of your other points you can expand on this and see, as every new wave of format and technology comes along - it creates more jobs and more income streams -

As does this one.
It's just not geared towards any specific form of entertainment.
It's a revolution in communication.
This, coupled with the cheapness of the tools needed to make a decent piece of art makes that the artist can pay for making their own work and distribution.

The jobs that this particular revolution created are much more general.
They facilitate communication. They are not specific to anything except getting data from one point to another.
So, besides making it easier to create and distribute content it also gave rise to phenomenons like file sharing.

Many many new jobs and opportunities have been created this way, just not specific parts of an entertainment pipeline, as was needed in the past.
This new technology (called internet ) is usefull and general in so many ways that it would be strange to even attempt re-creating the tools that have been used to bring entertainment into living rooms.
A lot of people fail to understand this.
That is the reason this revolution is still happening.

i agree with you on one point though - it does get more complicated, and requires more 'non-artists' to get paid for the whole process . but this is not really a bad thing - as some do a good job and make the whole process better....

As i said before, this is not so anymore
Production costs are droping constantly, tools get easier to use, specialist functions start to disappear.
There is a growing number of people able to write, perform, produce and release their own work!
Creating and selling entertainment has never been easier!
You just need to readjust to a lot of things before you can go with the flow.
Maybe it's just another form of generational change as well as so many old people fail to understand why young people are doing things the way they do.

[ckreon]

as an artist myself (one that relies on touring to survive) - i can say that no one i know is scared shitless by piracy.

all of the bands we've toured with, played one-off's with, just met, whatever, have all been fine with it. its another level of exposure, and it brings more kids to shows, which is where we make money.

the only people i know that are "scared" of piracy are the big labels, and the whiners like metallica.

we make more money because of it.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by bleepbleep

currently - torrents/illegal downloading does not support the artist directly, although some argue that their are indirect consequences

I see this as a direct consequence of the record companies failing to anticipate the new market.
I knew in '97 that the market was changing and would not be able to return to the previous status quo.
People already started downloading mp3's months after the initial release of winamp.
It happened almost instantly when the technology became available.

The reaction of the industry was apathy.
It took a computer company (apple) to pick up the pieces of an outdated distribution model.
There is still no serious initiative from record companies to do better than iTunes store.

So in the past 10 years the industry has failed to introduce a new way of hooking artists up with consumers.
It took a company from an unrelated sector to show them the way and they still don't get it. (well, they DO get it, they just own large portions of the snail-mail distribution circus so they want their money back. 'YOU BUY OUR CD NOW!' they say.)
In the last decade they sat by the side and looked how their audience changed consumption patterns.
Besides doing nothing they complain how young people fail to adhere to their thoughts of how the world they helped to create should work.

This is the next mass extinction and they are the dino's...
All bets are off and the market is open.
Go getum!

[bleepbleep]

i am the younger generation, and i do self release, as well as produce and release records with all kinds of labels from one man operations, right up to the majors.

i can tell you straight that yes - you can effectively self release, but its all about profile, publicity and fan base - these are the three factors which a label, middleman, promo team etc did for the musician.

without these, you dont stand much of a chance of reaching a big enough audience and making any real money to survive on..

yes myspace/blahblah/facebook/blogs/dj mix sites, internet revolution etc but doing them yourself sucks, and takes up loads of time that i for one would rather spend involved in the music

what would you rather spend your time on?

i dont think any dj/producer is scared shitless by piracy, just a bit downhearted when their new releases are being blogged to death before they are even availible in shops -
and since almost every track released is on a blog, there isnt rany hype by being on a blog, it deosnt translate into sales...

[monomer]

Originally Posted by ckreon

as an artist myself (one that relies on touring to survive) - i can say that no one i know is scared shitless by piracy.

all of the bands we've toured with, played one-off's with, just met, whatever, have all been fine with it. its another level of exposure, and it brings more kids to shows, which is where we make money.

the only people i know that are "scared" of piracy are the big labels, and the whiners like metallica.

we make more money because of it.

Thank you.

[bleepbleep]

Originally Posted by monomer

I see this as a direct consequence of the record companies failing to anticipate the new market.

well i see this as a direct consequence of selfishness whereby people want something for free and will create reasons to justify their actions -

this is 2009 - there are so many ways of buying the MP3's that there's almost no excuse for downloading a commercially available release via a torrent site/rapidshare etc

it would be nice however - if someone came up with a new promotional vehicle that was guaranteed to connect artists with supportive/paying audience

[monomer]

Originally Posted by bleepbleep

i am the younger generation, and i do self release, as well as produce and release records with all kinds of labels from one man operations, right up to the majors.

i can tell you straight that yes - you can effectively self release, but its all about profile, publicity and fan base - these are the three factors which a label, middleman, promo team etc did for the musician.

If you feel you cannot reach an big enough audience then you indeed need the middel man.
Well, hire them!
They will, in theory, earn themselfs back, right?

There is nothing about promotion that is hindered by the internet.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by bleepbleep

well i see this as a direct consequence of selfishness whereby people want something for free and will create reasons to justify their actions -

this is 2009 - there are so many ways of buying the MP3's that there's almost no excuse for downloading a commercially available release via a torrent site/rapidshare etc

it would be nice however - if someone came up with a new promotional vehicle that was guaranteed to connect artists with supportive/paying audience

Interesting thought.

Personaly I think that the connection is there already but the forms of payment are just lagging behind.

I would, for instance, like a subscription based access to collections of entertainment.
I'd like to watch tv by paying one sum a month and be able to make my own schedule which is then streamed to my pc at my command.

[bleepbleep]

Originally Posted by monomer

Interesting thought.

Personaly I think that the connection is there already but the forms of payment are just lagging behind.

I would, for instance, like a subscription based access to collections of entertainment.
I'd like to watch tv by paying one sum a month and be able to make my own schedule which is then streamed to my pc at my command.

i think it is a nice idea, and very Utopian to expect a reality where one subscription fee entitles a person to every TV/Movie/Music ever created -

there will always be different companies producing works under their own agenda, values, pricing etc
i think that this is the what blocks that reality from happening

[bleepbleep]

Originally Posted by monomer

If you feel you cannot reach an big enough audience then you indeed need the middel man.
Well, hire them!
They will, in theory, earn themselfs back, right?

There is nothing about promotion that is hindered by the internet.

that's exactly what i said - you can still hire them, but their are no guarantees that they will earn themselves back, and never have been. even less now because of illegal downloading.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by ckreon

all of the bands we've toured with, played one-off's with, just met, whatever, have all been fine with it. its another level of exposure, and it brings more kids to shows, which is where we make money.

Good for you.
I just hope you never get sick of touring, or the 'kids' never get sick of seeing your band for the umpteenth time, or you don't fall in love, have children and hate to leave them behind for months at a time.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by bleepbleep

i think it is a nice idea, and very Utopian to expect a reality where one subscription fee entitles a person to every TV/Movie/Music ever created -

I don't see it as utopian, just different.
It's possible to have this.
I guess it would be pretty cheap as such a system would make a much more stable income for the artists. And everyone will get payed.
And the customer doesn't have to have access to everything all the time.
It can be managed into groups which can even be differently priced.
There will be different companies delivering different sets of content.

there will always be different companies producing works under their own agenda, values, pricing etc
i think that this is the what blocks that reality from happening

My suggestion would be some company that will take works from all these different artists, negociate a flat-rate price for exposing their work and unblock that reality.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by bleepbleep

l

and your band - 'my second chance' has no upcoming shows listed on myspace -

i guess as your band makes 'christian rock/pop/indie' music it's the safest bet against piracy as Christians would never steal music as it's against their code of conduct.

Funny.
That cheered me up a bit.

[bleepbleep]

you could say that the PRS/MCPS do this in the UK for radio/broadcast/duplication etc

so there's nothing new - create a monoply for exploiting and collecting downloads -

there are several other threads now debating the whole 'how to create a global market with a single collection agency etc'
wont ever hapen for downloads, since its so easy to cheat the numbers with computers

Originally Posted by monomer

I don't see it as utopian, just different.
It's possible to have this.
I guess it would be pretty cheap as such a system would make a much more stable income for the artists. And everyone will get payed.
And the customer doesn't have to have access to everything all the time.
It can be managed into groups which can even be differently priced.
There will be different companies delivering different sets of content.




My suggestion would be some company that will take works from all these different artists, negociate a flat-rate price for exposing their work and unblock that reality.

[Chucho]

Originally Posted by monomer

So...

Now we are confronted with another change in the way ideas are transffered between people.
We have the internet.

You are not comparing like with like.
In this instance (TPB) the change in medium is not the problem. The problem is the method of payment, unlike any of the other changes / developments you mentioned.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by Chucho

You are not comparing like with like.
In this instance (TPB) the change in medium is not the problem. The problem is the method of payment, unlike any of the other changes / developments you mentioned.

I'm not so sure.

The first clues about the change in the market were there in full motion more than 10 years ago.
TPB is just a recent solidification of those changes.
The medium is not the problem, people not knowing how to exploit it correctly are.

With every transition new ways had to be invented to compensate the artists within the new production pipelines.
It's because of those changes that copyright law has been adapted over the decades and new forms of contracts came into existance.

Now we are at a point where I think we need to change our thoughts once more about the value of entertainment products and the way in which we can be compensated for producing them.

TPB just parked their ship in the hole between the old way of selling entertainment and the new way of using it.
The waiting, tho, is for a bridge...

[narcoman]

not an excelent point at all. The difference between all the things the OP listed and the Pirate bay issue is that the other things were legal at point of release.

[kdf]

I find this discussion all so pointless. What does the fact that the intenet is so wonderfull and provides income for so many people, and the record industry was to slow to get on the internet bandwagon got to do with anything?

If an accountant can go to work for an 8 hour day and get paid for his services, why must a composer / musician / music producer / music engineer / publisher etc. all the way down the line work an 8 hour day and then have half their pay taken from them and given to somebody else?

It is quite simply theft. No augument.

[Chucho]

Originally Posted by narcoman

not an excelent point at all. The difference between all the things the OP listed and the Pirate bay issue is that the other things were legal at point of release.

That was my point. The phrase 'method of payment' was a bit obtuse.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by kdf

If an accountant can go to work for an 8 hour day and get paid for his services, why must a composer / musician / music producer / music engineer / publisher etc. all the way down the line work an 8 hour day and then have half their pay taken from them and given to somebody else?

But did you notice the decline of accountants since the intorduction of the computer on the workfloor in the 50's/60's?
A semi-big company (by todays standards) had buildings full of accountants just to manualy check the yearly balance.
Also, the actual things that an accountant does these days differ from the job as it was done 50 years ago.
Accountants these days have a very different view of what their job entails than some decades ago.

And then maybe we should conclude that the whole in-between chain of producers , engineers, publishers etc,etc,etc will be needed less and less.
And people will lose their jobs over it while the whole thing reorganizes itself.
Every revolution has its victims.

It is quite simply theft. No augument.

Technicaly no, since infringing on copyright is not the same as theft and TPB doesn't infringe on copyright in the first place, they facilitate at best.

But sure, if you want to call them thieves then i'm with you.
However my argument is not directly about TPB.
TPB is just a result of technological changes.

The question is, how can we make money despite TPB.

[chrisso]

There's credit card skimming technology out there too.
Just because the technology exists doesn't mean we have to give in to it.

The point people keep making in this thread is a good one.....
Live musicians went on to perform on gramaphone. Theatre actors went on to perform in film, and then again on television.
Musicians can perform on digital media, but the difference is, some people suggest they should do it for no certain financial reward.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by chrisso

There's credit card skimming technology out there too.
Just because the technology exists doesn't mean we have to give in to it.

I guess the point is that it would take more money to stop (and keep it stopped) than would be recovered by stopping it.

The point people keep making in this thread is a good one.....
Live musicians went on to perform on gramaphone. Theatre actors went on to perform in film, and then again on television.
Musicians can perform on digital media, but the difference is, some people suggest they should do it for no certain financial reward.

I dont think anyone here feels that musicians should not be compensated for their work.

[author]

'Significance of TPB seen through history...'

Same as Al Capone's during Prohibition. (Will end in the same way.)

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by monomer

I

I dont think anyone here feels that musicians should not be compensated for their work.

How does that square with the often made statement on this forum that music should be free to share?
And if illegal downloading is just the sign of new technology at work, how are musicians going to be compensated?