The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Billy Corgan - No Money In Music Now
Old 12th July 2012
  #1711
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
That no one wants to buy either. I disagree with your first line/premise.

Music has never been less important to a person's life than it is today. Just look around. Music defined your lifestyle, clothing and outlook 40 years ago.
The Beatles changed pop culture. That has not happened since.
Unfortunate, but true.

Though I will (reluctantly) say Lady Gaga has had (albeit diminutive by comparison to the Beatles) some effect on fashion/some minor psychological effects...though it's a big package, and it's rammed down people's throat from every angle...modern Rap/Hip Hop too; there's plenty of other examples in other genres, but it's always more short-lived and diffuse. But that's just modernity in general, everything is more fragmented...I don't think we'll ever have a Beatles, or a David Bowie etc. again...

Basically, recorded music just isn't enough for most people these days; other than music-makers or similar associates. And even when it is, average people don't tend to be that fussy about it. Under 30s want a flashy video at the very least...or the full-on experience of a gig...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Sure, they have the music on, but are they really listening?
Exactly.

The point is even if we removed every extant piece of piracy off the net, and raided everyone's hard drives across the planet. Do you think record sales would suddenly skyrocket? Kids wouldn't just stick on some nobody bands their mates are in on Soundcloud, or watch (legitimately uploaded videos) on Youtube like Vevo, artist/indie label uploads etc...in a way, Billy's not that far off the mark, that money (for artists) will have to come via anything other than record sales.

OK, back-catalog purchases would return a good bit, but that's not going to help contemporary producers or artists all that much...
Old 12th July 2012
  #1712
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Not to rehash this whole discussion again, but... if you had read it, you'd know that the bill did EXACTLY that and nothing more..
Again, when you're dealing with legislation, it's not about what it immediately appears to do/say...same goes for all legal documents. Aroundtheworld said the rest better than I can...

But, anyway I was just talking about the approach to piracy in general in that sentence...
Old 12th July 2012
  #1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
I glanced over some of it, but that is beside the point: reading legislation is not for those unversed in law, sorry, unless you have a law degree you cannot interpret what is between the lines...

I agree with Wikipedia's stance on SOPA. The message from the Wikipedia Blackout: Please leave the Internet alone — Wikimedia blog

Also, that's a YouTube video by a professor at NYU. Not just some idiot...Clay Shirky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's agree to disagree on this one.
Sure - but you are disagreeing based on the disinformation and pro-corporation propaganda of someone telling you what to think. I find it truly stunning how quickly people have agreed to surrender their Individual Rights to protect Corporate Interest.

If Google has all of your personal information (privacy), you still have it too, right?

The operative part of this conversation is that the protections that are being sought are those of Individuals FROM and AGAINST Illegal Corporate Exploitation.

Is Google the 1% or the 99%?
Am I, as an individual creator the 1% or the 99%?

So much for individual rights and personal liberty as long as corporations get to profit by illegal exploiting the work of artists, creators and musicians... nice...
Old 12th July 2012
  #1714
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Hey man, I'm with you on this...all I was saying is that they should go after the companies that are making money out of piracy/exploitation (directly and indirectly) rather than some end-users...for their own sake too.
I agree - but why should anyone acting illegally have a get out of jail free card. That just defers the responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
For example, the FBI know well enough to go after drug dealers/creators and attack the end-users by education rather than heavily prosecuting or making examples out of them.
same here... which is what "six strikes" will be. there are only really TWO major prosecutions for UPLOADING and those are Joel Tenenbaum and Jaime Thomas. BOTH of whom were found guilty by a Jury of Peers (not a judge) and BOTH had the opportunity to settle multiple times and avoid costly legal action. BOTH however, also prove, legally that their activity is in fact illegal and punishable under the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Sorry but this is the paradox of copyright legislation; copying is fundamental to the creative process, Beethoven copied Mozart/Haydn, and certainly didn't compensate them for it... though occasionally had the humility to dedicate a thing or two.
No, there is no paradox. How many actual copyright infringement lawsuits are there on a compositional level? Like next to none. A few high profile and very obvious cases - but out of the 70,000 album releases a year... maybe there's one or two every couple of years. You are arguing about something that in fact does not exist.

Now, if you take my EXACT recording and copy and redistribute it without my permission that is very different, and that's what we are talking about. Feel free to make your OWN recording if it's that easy to do, why do you need to illegally exploit mine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
I'm sure glad Jeff Buckley was allowed to make use of all those songs without some legislation breathing down his throat. If every time an up and coming artist got up on stage to sing a cover, he was arrested for "piracy", well, bring that to its logical conclusion...
Right. You're making my point. The does allow for covers. So you don't really have an argument. What it doesn't allow is you illegally profiting from Jeff Buckley's recording of those covers without his consent and compensating him. You're comparing apples to airplanes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Basically, police it at the point(s) of revenue, and leave the kids alone.
Again, why should anyone get a get our of jail free card. I agree with you that this is the way it's going to go, but again, let's see what happens when mom and dad start getting those warning letters and emails. That will be quiet the education don't you think?
Old 12th July 2012
  #1715
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Sure - but you are disagreeing based on the disinformation and pro-corporation propaganda of someone telling you what to think. I find it truly stunning how quickly people have agreed to surrender their Individual Rights to protect Corporate Interest.

If Google has all of your personal information (privacy), you still have it too, right?

The operative part of this conversation is that the protections that are being sought are those of Individuals FROM and AGAINST Illegal Corporate Exploitation.

Is Google the 1% or the 99%?
Am I, as an individual creator the 1% or the 99%?

So much for individual rights and personal liberty as long as corporations get to profit by illegal exploiting the work of artists, creators and musicians... nice...
I agree with what you're saying here; but I don't believe that's what SOPA is going to protect (immediately yes, but not in its greater implications) and, more importantly, at what cost...there's a lot of pro-corporation agenda on both sides.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1716
Gear Addict
 

On another note, I think this is a great video that everyone here (straddled between, or on either side of the fence) would find interesting:

Al Teller – Former head of CBS, Columbia, and MCA Records
Old 12th July 2012
  #1717
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
I agree with what you're saying here, but I don't believe that's what SOPA is going to protect...there's a lot of pro-corporation agenda on both sides.
I don't know why anyone is still talking about a dead bill. It doesn't exist and is not part of the current conversation.

Copyright is for the protection of the Individual FROM Corporate Exploitation. It's not more simple than that. If the internet companies can dramatically change copyright, it means that artists will no longer get paid for the placement of their music in TV shows, Commercials and Films.

Musicians would only ever be able to make money by live performance which turns back artists rights at least 100 years and you think that's some how "progress and innovation." Really? Seriously?

People should just be honest. They like getting stuff for free and they don't want the faucet of free turned off, God Forbid.

If the internet was so innovated with new technology it wouldn't require old media to be profitable would it? If I lost my job to a million hobbyists giving away their music for free and no one wants to pay for mine as a result - that is in fact a sea change. But that's not what's happen. Many hobbyists can not give away their music, literally, they pay to have it distributed, they pay for various services, etc. What people want, is the music I produce and release that actually has value and as long as they can get it for free, illegally and without consequence they will. Just be honest about it.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Attempts to frame opponents of the bill as uncritical pawns should then be so seen as the historical manipulation that it is; it was only public pressure that compelled the tech giants to adopt their eventual stance against SOPA.
You do remember that Wikipedia was absolute numbero uno, front and center against SOPA. hardly an unbiased source for analysis then.Regarding 'uncritical pawns', I don't remember that view being widespread, but again, you do remember that otherwise 'respected' leaders of the tech lobby, seen as experienced and 'honest' business people by the public at large, were stridently told the internet sky would fall in if SOPA went through.
The internet would 'be broken'.
I have otherwise rational friends who literally feared for their Facebook accounts.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
That no one wants to buy either. I disagree with your first line/premise.

Music has never been less important to a person's life than it is today.
So business shouldn't pay musicians when they use music to sell their products.
If music is unimportant why has Facebook signed a deal with Spotify, why has Apple put music players and music apps on all it's gadgets?

Perhaps the public doesn't want to pay for music, but those companies exploiting music to power their products should. No?
Old 13th July 2012
  #1720
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You do remember that Wikipedia was absolute numbero uno, front and center against SOPA. hardly an unbiased source for analysis then.
The referenced Wikipedia blog that I was discussing was just that: a blog. I don't think Wikipedia as an entity would claim to be neutral toward the subject SOPA. They aren't; they took a very clear position. That doesn't itself invalidate anything its representatives or supporters say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I have otherwise rational friends who literally feared for their Facebook accounts.
I don't know how widespread that view was; it wasn't my experience, to be sure. Word of mouth chains will obscure the truth of most subject matters, and the opposition to SOPA was very much a word-of-mouth based movement, rather than one decreed from above. As I briefly discuss in this previous post, most of the big names in technology fields were either neutral toward or in favor of SOPA until public opinion gave them cause to change their stances (here's one notably direct example).

I agree with rack gear that there's little reason to continue to discuss SOPA. I am only posting on the matter to raise word against the rewriting of history (bonus unrelated recent rewrite reference) which both distorts the characterization of the movement against it and minimizes the negative technical and legal consequences of the bill.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post

I don't know how widespread that view was; it wasn't my experience, to be sure.
Disingenuous.

Google: 'Sopa Breaks The Internet'.
It's a snowstorm of results stating that exact phrase.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1722
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Disingenuous.

Google: 'Sopa Breaks The Internet'.
It's a snowstorm of results stating that exact phrase.
SOPA [does|would] (pick tense at your leisure) break the deployment of the current/next generation of internet infrastructure. Here's a post of mine from last week directly addressing the accuracy of the phrase. Without any qualifiers, it is somewhat exaggerated claim, but it is not outrightly false.

However, what you are disputing -- for whatever reason -- is the relative prevalence of the framing of SOPA as breaking the internet versus the framing of the SOPA debate as a battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley (thus minimizing the widespread popular opposition). A search for "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" or "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley SOPA" reveals a similar snowstorm of results. The worth of this exercise in comparison is left up to the reader. I don't see much value in this methodology, myself, not least because it is an unnecessary comparison; the claim that major news organizations framed the debate as a battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley is not incompatible or in competition with the claim that there were or were not also popular stirrings over whether SOPA would "break" the internet (and as mentioned mere sentences ago: it can be reasonably seen as doing so).


Edit to add: It occurs to me that you do not reside in the United States, and would likely then be unfamiliar with the manner in which the US news media framed the debate surrounding SOPA, and it may then be wise for you to excuse yourself from a subject on which you may be excusably ignorant.

Last edited by aroundtheworld; 13th July 2012 at 01:24 AM.. Reason: addition
Old 13th July 2012
  #1723
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Dude, you're talking nonsense..."natural cycles of peaks and throughs", the upward trajectory is all; whatever.
lol! (the point of diminishing returns has long since left the building with this guy...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
...I'm certainly not trying to say that internet piracy wasn't a huge influence...nor that it wasn't the primary factor...
so why are you blathering on for pages trying to disprove it then? it's a little schizo dude...

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
There is still a hell of a lot of money in and around music, and most of it is going to the big labels, tech companies and everything but the creators...
remove "big labels" from that phrase and you've understood everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
if you want to buy into the bull**** the industry is selling you, go for it...hey, maybe they'll even hire you to spread some around for them!
kinda the pot calling the kettle black there flippy! but maybe you don't know you're a perky little tech industry cheerleader yet. most don't: that's the beauty of tech dogma--they sell their crimes against art and artists with words like "freedom" and "individual" and "evolution", while cleverly pointing their fingers at the big bad "labels"--greedy old dinosaurs who used to make you pay for music (god forbid!), that they've heroically liberated you from... and the cyber-millions lap it up. (how could they not?... the doctrine comes with so much awesome free stuff!!) from there on in it just works on autopilot...

so sorry to break it to you little soldier: tech has definitely won the bull**** battle--and you're one of the predictable millions "buying into it". they've successfully convinced a whole generation that the only people that have actually invested in music and artists (ahem... record labels) are the bad guys, and the people that have sucked all but the last drop of value out of music as both an art form and a commodity are the good guys.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1724
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
Lastfm ...
thanks for the heads up, sounds interesting, i'll check it out.

it may be a good indicator, but i'm still hoping to get solid numbers one day without insane amounts of extrapolation etc. (that's probably a pipe dream though...)
Old 13th July 2012
  #1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post

Edit to add: It occurs to me that you do not reside in the United States, and would likely then be unfamiliar with the manner in which the US news media framed the debate surrounding SOPA, and it may then be wise for you to excuse yourself from a subject on which you may be excusably ignorant.


The internet isn't US only. The Wikipedia campaign was global. And as such I was well aware of both the online and terrestrial campaign on both sides.
Whether 'hollywood versus silicon valley' would have muted the response to SOPA is debatable. Everyone I knew, and everything I read online was all about 'breaking the internet'. Effectively an end to the internet as we currently enjoy it, an end to freedom of speech. As it was claimed.
The people who instantiated this claim were overwhelmingly millionaire business people who's wealth stemmed from disseminating 'free information' (like Jimmy Wales).
To suggest anything otherwise is as I say, clearly disingenuous.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1726
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The Wikipedia campaign was global.
The Wikipedia blackout affected only the English Wikipedia site. Some sister sites displayed a banner in solidarity, but no other languages went black. I don't feel like anything you've added anything else -- to the extent that that your reply is comprehensible -- that is yet unaddressed by my previous post(s), so I will direct you back to it if you'd care for my response. As stated, and as unchallenged, it is reasonable to suggest that SOPA would "break the internet [security infrastructure]," though the phrase is most accurate with the appropriate qualifications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The people who instantiated this claim were overwhelmingly millionaire business people who's wealth stemmed from disseminating 'free information' (like Jimmy Wales).
Why do you put the words free information in quotes here? Relatedly, it might interest you to know that Wikipedia is, of course, not managed by a single individual, and that the blackout decision was openly debated by Wikipedians over the course of months to the point where consensus was achieved and a final decision was officially announced.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1727
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

This will be my last post on this particular side-bar topic, but in the interest of balance to the misinformation, anyone interested can read:

RE: "Will break the internet"
you're right aroundtheworld, i'm not an expert. But you know who is? more than anyone here? the person who actually invented the DNS SEC technology that would supposedly be 'broken'.
Paul Vixie said:
Quote:
Paul Vixie: “I’ve been asked by several people whether ISC’s Response Policy Zone technology (referenced above) can be used to implement government mandated DNS blocking, for example to protect Hollywood against intellectual property theft or to protect children against abuse by the distribution and viewing of Child Abuse Materials or to protect a society against content deemed dangerous by its government. Sadly my answer to this is a qualified “yes.” I say “qualified” because while I can agree that it’s worth perturbing the whole Internet ecosystem to wipe out a domain that’s being used for the distribution of Child Abuse Materials I simply cannot agree that this level of perturbation is warranted for the protection of intellectual property.”
Another experts' words on the matter noted network engineer Richard Bennett (who edits High Tech Forum, ect) Wrote
Quote:
“SOPA simply requires ISPs to delist the Internet addresses of foreign sites found by a US court to be dedicated to criminal activities. DNS has had the ability to delist sites since it was designed in 1987, and all widely used DNS services have this capability.

SOPA critics charge that such filtering breaks the Internet, but it does no such thing as long as it’s done sensibly. (Security experts criticized an early version of SOPA, but the amended bill addresses their concerns.) It’s a practical means of protecting consumers from rogue sites that traffic in illegal goods.

The opposition to SOPA preys on ignorance and fear. Most Internet users don’t understand the details of DNS or the methods used by Internet search engines. It’s easy for the apologists for the Internet status quo to convince the less well informed that the Internet is too big and complicated to improve. But they’re wrong.”
More info for the interested:
Lobbyists 1, Internet 0: An Alternative Take on SOPA | PPC Associates Blog
Stop Online Piracy Act [Walkthrough] | Copyhype

For the record, i'll take the actual inventors' word over how his invention works, over anonymous forum posters, thankyouverymuch.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1728
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
The Wikipedia blackout affected only the English Wikipedia site.
Right, but there was a massive hullabaloo globally on the day. Other websites chipping in with sympathetic action of their own, or blogging and commenting.
You also think only citizens of English speaking countries use Wikipedia in English?
Most of the news services ran the story in great detail and depth.



Quote:
Why do you put the words free information in quotes here?
Because there is 'free information' and then there are artworks. I don't regard art works as free information.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1729
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
I don't know why anyone is still talking about a dead bill. It doesn't exist ...
Intellectual Property Attaché Act.

I saw it here:
Smith's IP-Protection Bill Tabbed 'Zombie' Reanimation of SOPA - 2012-07-11 21:44:26 | Multichannel News

... but you can probably find it at your preferred source of information.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1730
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
This will be my last post on this particular side-bar topic, but in the interest of balance to the misinformation, anyone interested can read:

RE: "Will break the internet"
you're right aroundtheworld, i'm not an expert. But you know who is? more than anyone here? the person who actually invented the DNS SEC technology that would supposedly be 'broken'.
Paul Vixie said:
...
For the record, i'll take the actual inventors' word over how his invention works, over anonymous forum posters, thankyouverymuch.
Paul Vixie is very much against the filtering demanded by SOPA/PIPA on technical grounds (to say nothing of ideology); I don't know why you'd try to present him as supporting the technical plausibility of the measures.

Still, the paragraph immediately following your quoted selection from this article is an interesting one to jump off from:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Vixie on COICA, March 2011
Nevertheless the raw uncomfortable truth of the matter is that any form of mandated "DNS blocking" whose goal is to make certain domain names unreachable will be indistinguishable from the result of a Secure DNS failure — and a failure is a failure is a failure. We need informed debate on the question of mandated "DNS blocking" but we should be true to the facts and the details. Secure DNS and "DNS blocking" are ships in the night at the moment and whenever the goal of "DNS blocking" is merely domain name disappearance and not content insertion then "DNS blocking" will not break Secure DNS or even slow it down.
To rephrase that, the DNS resolution must return as a failure in response to a manipulated DNS entry. A hijacked/hacked name server is effectively the same as a filtered name server for an end-user. There are two important points in response to this, so let's use a more recent Paul Vixie post to shed further light:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Vixie on Refusing REFUSED, Jan 2012
The U.S. Congress' road to Stopping Online Piracy (SOPA) and PROTECT IP (PIPA) has had some twists and turns due to technical constraints imposed by the basic design of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). PIPA's (and SOPA's) provisions regarding advertising and payment networks appear to be well grounded in the law enforcement tradition called following the money, but other provisions having to do with regulating American Internet Service Providers (ISPs) so as to block DNS resolution for pirate or infringing web sites have been shown to be ineffectual, impractical, and sometimes unintelligible.
...
In summary, REFUSED doesn't mean what supporters of SOPA and PIPA want it to mean and no amount of new law can change that. There is in fact no signal in DNS that conveys the meaning of SOPA and PIPA, and every protocol perturbation thus far suggested by the supporters of SOPA and PIPA will look to DNSSEC like an attack or failure requiring circumvention. I urge anyone interested in adding new signals to DNS to please participate in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to work on a new Internet RFC document on this topic. As an open and transparent peer driven engineering forum, the IETF is ideally placed to study this problem, determine whether a solution is possible, and standardize such a solution for use on the global Internet.
These quotes are only marginally representative of the entire post; the whole thing is worth reading if you're interested in the subject -- it's a good history of the how the varying forms of censorship methods in proposed legislation would be handled in a real web environment. The gist of his position is that in a DNSSEC regime, any kind of filtering will appear to user as a failure condition, and the redirections desired by legislation (and there are legitimate reasons to prefer redirections over failure responses, both as a matter of public policy and of technical coherency) are impossible under DNSSEC. Censorship can only appear to the end-user as a broken internet (to borrow a phrase), and can so be of only marginal deterrence.

The second important point can be seen with the assistance of a Paul Vixie interview:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Vixie, August 2011
Say your browser, when it's trying to decide whether some web site is or is not your bank's web site, sees the modifications or hears no response. It has to be able to try some other mechanism like a proxy or a VPN as a backup solution rather than just giving up (or just accepting the modification and saying "who cares?"). Using a proxy or VPN as a backup solution would, under PROTECT IP, break the law.

I have a special concern about this since we will have to implement backup plans in the BIND validator. which we will not do if PROTECT IP passes. and without this kind of backup plan, DNSSEC itself will never be commercially viable.
His remarks toward commercial viability are of some importance here: the value of DNSSEC is closely related to how widely the protocol is adopted. If the obvious logical extension of failure responses in a DNSSEC implementation -- that is to say, a proxied or VPN'd alternate resolution path -- is outlawed (as it would have been under PIPA [the Senate's version of the House's SOPA]), then DNSSEC loses value (it can only fail to resolve a forbidden query, rather than detect manipulation and route around it), and the impetus for its adoption may be reduced, hindering the broad usage that is desired by anyone with a vested interest in network security (which is likely all of us: if you've ever used a credit card, or accessed your bank online, as two examples, then you should have an interest in network security!).
Old 13th July 2012
  #1731
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The people who instantiated this claim were overwhelmingly millionaire business people who's wealth stemmed from disseminating 'free information' (like Jimmy Wales).
Why do you put the words free information in quotes here?
Because there is 'free information' and then there are artworks. I don't regard art works as free information.
How does this distinction (not that I understand it; there are plenty of Free as in Freedom works of art) factor into the context of Jimmy Wales where you had used it?
Old 13th July 2012
  #1732
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
...
did you even read your quote?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Vixie
..whenever the goal of "DNS blocking" is merely domain name disappearance and not content insertion then "DNS blocking" will not break Secure DNS or even slow it down
i'm done.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1733
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
did you even read your quote?

i'm done.
No, you weren't already done spreading your misinformation? I recommend that you reread my post which quite adequately addresses the context of that quote you highlight. Domain name disappearance is not the intent of filtering/censorship provisions; content insertion is.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1734
Gear Addict
 
Wolf LeProducer's Avatar
 

Internet piracy is not the only issue. Although, "the issue of the general public believing they should have music for free, and if not they pirate," is a huge issue. There is also the issue of, "media fragmentation." This is the other, less publicized aspect, of the current woes of all things, "music industry."
Old 13th July 2012
  #1735
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
How does this distinction (not that I understand it; there are plenty of Free as in Freedom works of art) factor into the context of Jimmy Wales where you had used it?
You don't understand the difference between information freely shared over the web, and that shared without the creators consent?
You've never heard the very often repeated mantra "information wants to be free" with regard to unauthorized downloading?
Old 13th July 2012
  #1736
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
...
Why do you put the words free information in quotes here?
i don't want to speak for chrisso, but it seems obvious his use of "free information" in this context is his way of citing an obvious truth about the way the tech industry abuses copyright and intellectual property, without hashing over the minutiae of the "counter arguments" again. (notice how i used quotes with "counter arguments" there? that's another example of the ironic use off quotation marks for you. )

the difference between what constitutes free information, and what constitutes infringement on an artist's intellectual property (which is a very clearly defined and universally acknowledged legal concept, worldwide), has been hashed out over and over again here.

if "information wants to be free" as the tech industry has been selling for all these years, then access to it should be free as well, no? what a beautiful, noble, altruistic concept: let's tell google to stop making billions in advertising revenue (um... selling information), tell ISPs to stop charging for internet access, and truly set information FREE... i'm all for it!

the day that happens, i promise you i'll sign my entire catalog over to creative commons, and crusade that every other artist i've ever known or worked with does the same.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1737
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_music View Post
lol! [...insert ******** here...]
You've been on my case since here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_music View Post
that's a common misconception. (often regurgitated by piracy advocates. *not accusing you, just pointing out the fact!) the 90s was more likely the tail end of the steady growth of the industry up until broadband internet access became commonplace, and it became a socially acceptable norm to steal music.

(have a look at the numbers provided by rack gear above; correlate them with data that shows broadband penetration over the same timeframe and they tell most of the story.)



sure, that's a big problem. agreed.

but the whole sales thing is kind of a big problem too, don't you think?
CONTENDING my point that the 90s was a boom...

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
The peak is at 24, right? Levels off there, no?

1) Losing something you might have made under the notion that increasingly favorable conditions would continue to increase is not losing something.

2) SOPA.

No confusion at all.
I don't agree with companies like Rapidshare (Megaupload and all that stuff), or YouTube making money out of stolen goods; but I don't like when some student or individual is prosecuted for sharing a few dozen MP3s.

Yeah of course, but it's kinda complicated, because, for example, you have small local shops/craftmakers etc. that have been wiped out by the internet; that's the same (worse in some cases) as how the independent labels/bands have been hit etc.

I totally agree with your whole stance on Tunecore and all that. Parasites.

I think the big labels have been hit the least, and they're blaming it on this and that, and using it as an excuse to pay their artists less, who in turn go on to moan about it because they have to tour more now to support their lifestyle...Jimi spent most of his life on the road...
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
I think a better solution than Tunecore or iTunes and all that, would be independent labels selling directly, which means that artists (and all those involved in the creative side of music)/consumers need to support them...and consumers/artists need to be made aware that these new paid-music conduits are worse for the artists than the old paradigms, big labels, record shops etc. etc.

But maybe things have changed too much...and all these tech companies have gotten too powerful.
Then you got trigger happy on the emoticons, and now you're just talking ****...where have I ever advocated tech companies? I think Google and Apple are some of the most dangerous companies in the world right now (check out some of Eben Moglen's work if you're interested in finding out why).

The big labels started propping up a lot of crap towards the mid/end of the 90s and the whole thing was becoming LESS about the music...plenty of the more creative artists of that era were becoming disgruntled by their behaviour and some of them began to leave the majors...but you're obviously a crony, so all this will fall on deaf ears.

This video actually correlates some of what I said re 80s recession/90s boom...if you think you know more about the record industry than Al, knock yourself out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
On another note, I think this is a great video that everyone here (straddled between, or on either side of the fence) would find interesting:

Al Teller – Former head of CBS, Columbia, and MCA Records
The majors became corporate, now they're even more corporate; tech companies are even more corporate again. Corporatism is bad for the human race. Freedom of information isn't. If we can agree on this, maybe we can have a conversation; otherwise, I'm not interested in talking to you man...like I said, you're doing a good job. Laterz.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1738
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
You've been on my case since ...
only because i care.

but seriously (i don't really), i got on your case because at first you seemed genuinely interested, but then you started regurgitating false statements i've been hearing like a broken record (pun intended) for years... i have little patience left for those arguments.

also, we happened to cross paths at a particularly bad moment (for you): i was invited to speak on this very subject at a TEDx conference last wknd; the numbers are still fresh in my mind, and so is my enthusiasm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
I think Google and Apple are some of the most dangerous companies in the world right now...
you got that part right brother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
...but you're obviously a crony, so all this will fall on deaf ears.
it might surprise you to know that i've been involved in legal action against 2 different record labels on 2 different occasions. a lot of those guys are serious sharks--agreed. the difference between us it seems, is that i don't think there's anything inherently sinister or evil about disagreements over contracts or money: it happens in every business. music is no different in that respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Corporatism is bad for the human race. Freedom of information isn't.
yup. (as long of your definition of "free information" doesn't include the right to infringe on artists' copyrights/intellectual property. if it does, your definition of "free information" is not so great for the human race.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
If we can agree on this,
ok, agreed. (as long as our definitions of free information are the same.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
maybe we can have a conversation;
not until you stop filibustering and ignoring hard data when it's presented, and stop spouting dogma that hinders the conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
otherwise, I'm not interested in talking to you man...
ditto.
Old 13th July 2012
  #1739
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The people who instantiated this claim were overwhelmingly millionaire business people who's wealth stemmed from disseminating 'free information' (like Jimmy Wales).
Why do you put the words free information in quotes here?
Because there is 'free information' and then there are artworks. I don't regard art works as free information.
How does this distinction (not that I understand it; there are plenty of Free as in Freedom works of art) factor into the context of Jimmy Wales wherea you had used it?
You don't understand the difference between information freely shared over the web, and that shared without the creators consent?
You've never heard the very often repeated mantra "information wants to be free" with regard to unauthorized downloading?
Now relate this concept and distinction to Jimmy Wales, if you would. I hope I've made it clear through this conversation that it's this relation I am prodding at: if you aren't backhandedly accusing Jimmy Wales of facilitating or profitting from "unauthorized downloads," then why are you invoking his name with this association?
Old 13th July 2012
  #1740
The title is wrong. There is no money is selling recordings but there is still money in the music biz, its just generated from different sources.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump