The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.
Old 21st June 2010
  #331
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Of course an ad-based model wouldn't work for music. Look at radio.

Oh... wait. Damn.
Ad-based models online have been tried extensively and don't come close to recouping. Imeem, We7, etc have all died. Spotify is nowhere near a profit.

Streaming generates minimal money for the property owner.

It's been posted a million times:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautifu...ng_out_550.png

If you want ad money to replace purchasing revenue you need to enter the Nascar domain of corporate sponsorships like Britney with Coke or Justin Timberlake with McDonald's.

And yes, I expect we'll be seeing more of that. No I don't think it is desirable.
Old 21st June 2010
  #332
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
That's not really relevant. Those companies are either legally attackable, or they are outside of the legal reach of the company and therefore they wouldn't pay anyway. Otherwise, their use of the medicine is not without legal ramifications and they have to license it or end up court. If that applied in this case, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Ok. It appears there were a number of unstated limitations in your original question that have only come up after the initial question was answered.

So I'll just leave this hear and go do something more productive.

Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old 21st June 2010
  #333
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Many tech and pharmaceutical companies do this all the time. When a product becomes too easy to imitate or copy, they begin to license it by offering branding or trade secrets etc.. This is exactly what you were asking for. Product is easily 'stolen' so company continues to make money off the byproduct. This applies directly to music as these are intangibles being dealt with in these industries (patents).
Off topic, but pharmaceuticals make their money by patenting their innovations and making massive cash off the fact that the patents are legally enforced, so they have sole rights to production and distribution.

You can 'pirate' those innovations by mixing Viagra in a lab and selling (or giving it away) on the side, but you will be arrested and jailed.

And that's where the industries diverge.
Old 21st June 2010
  #334
And on from the above comment.
Pharmaceuticals are endlessly re-inventible.
In other words, find a potion that will halt the advance of Malaria and you'll make billions in profits before you have to give up the sole rights.
What illegal downloading has done is damage the value of all music from now until the end of time, or until we can circumvent it.
To choose your analogy, it would be like telling all pharmaceutical companies, from now on all their remedies should be given away free, for all time.
No guessing how little money, if any would then flow into years of R&D.
Old 21st June 2010
  #335
No, they were stated. Here is my original statement:

Quote:
Can you point to a single entity which has come remotely close to replacing the revenues that used to come from selling the product by way of selling something else indirectly from the product?
So they had to be a PRODUCT company that replaced the revenues of the selling of that product, by somehow getting their revenues in another way. Companies that are conduits and never created the product don't count obviously. And of course the example of licensing some number of now commodity drugs is nothing remotely similar. They still will sell other, often VERY high margin, drugs. So they've in no way transitioned their industry to such a model in general, and if they did, the same thing would happen to them as has happened to the music industry.

So you haven't, and probably cannot, provide an example that is anything like what the current situation is in the music, movie, and software industries.
Old 21st June 2010
  #336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Of course an ad-based model wouldn't work for music. Look at radio.

Oh... wait. Damn.
Even if it were to work, you are mistakenly (in my view) ignoring the knock on effect of changing the income model in music.
As a music consumer myself, I would be very angry indeed if I had to listen to a Radio Shack commercial before I could listen to the track I wanted to.
Or if I had to buy an album by 'British Airways Coldplay', or view 15 minutes of commercials at a live concert before the band came on, and endure constant references from Bono thanking VISA for making this U2 show possible etc, etc.

Yeah, I guess anything is possible, doable - but is it desirable to reduce recorded income for musicians to zero and replace it with pervasive advertising and marketing?
I mean music has often been the anti establishment voice!
You can't write a song called 'Sunday Bloody Sunday', which recently turned out to be chillingly on the mark, with Walmart or American Express looking over your shoulder with their endorsement contract.
Old 21st June 2010
  #337
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
If you want ad money to replace purchasing revenue you need to enter the Nascar domain of corporate sponsorships like Britney with Coke or Justin Timberlake with McDonald's.

And yes, I expect we'll be seeing more of that. No I don't think it is desirable.
Japanese major labels are doing this massively since the mid '90. Today, almost every single (or even sometimes album filler) from a top 40 artist is promoting a product (or event). The result: the final decision regarding which song will make the cut is not made by the producer, A&R or label peoples. It is made by the sponsor, who most of time has no clue about music and will never take any "artistic" risk, always going for carbon copy of past hit songs.
Old 21st June 2010
  #338
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ran_ks View Post
... the final decision regarding which song will make the cut is not made by the producer, A&R or label peoples. It is made by the sponsor, who most of time has no clue about music and will never take any "artistic" risk, always going for carbon copy of past hit songs...
This is the "new business model" that's being hyped by the Wall Street crowd. It threatens to absolutely kill artistic innovation in music outside of academic or hobbyist environments.
Old 21st June 2010
  #339
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
The generation that feels they are entitled to steal deserves to be eliminated. It's just more of the "me, me, I want it now, I want it free" mentality. "I DESERVE MUSIC FOR FREE. ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE DAMMIT!"

Try at it at your local grocers next time your hungry.

TH
..round and round we go...

There was a cultural shift that happened with Napster, and continues. I don't believe it's permanent.

The thing is you can brand them as criminals, or you can see them as a potential revenue stream.

How are you going to "eliminate" an entire generation??
Old 21st June 2010
  #340
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
But his point was completely valid. The fact that laws may or may not change people's behavior doesn't make your analogy relevant, because in this case the behavior that didn't change was completely different. Something that was previously considered legal, was made illegal for moral reasons, and people resisted that. But they weren't trying to take something that didn't belong to them.

In the situation at hand, something that has been considered both illegal and immoral for centuries is now being done. So they just have no relationship whatsoever. Your argument could be used to justify genocide, much less file downloading.
Thanks for clarifying for MAFG.

So it's a piss poor analogy... I admit.

I think I'm right about the bigger point...
Old 21st June 2010
  #341
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
People of course always bring up Google as a company making a lot of money by giving stuff away. But they aren't giving away anything. If they were giving it away, then they'd let anyone copy their huge databases and set up competing search engines.
Google is giving away a service and not giving away their product.
Old 21st June 2010
  #342
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
you could get a bunch of artists to replicate what is going on with this free idea.

we could always get creative and set up alternate campaigns like..

"upload 10 minutes of silence to youtube and win a free ticket to the next lady gaga concert."
Old 21st June 2010
  #343
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Google is giving away a service and not giving away their product.
Yeh, that's the point I'm making. People don't make the distinction, and so Google is always put forward as an example of making money by giving something away, but they aren't giving anything away, any more than the car rental company is giving away cars. You have to come to them to get it, and therefore they can make money. If they were really giving away their *product*, then you wouldn't have to come to them, and their situation would be analogous to the music industry, and they'd be in the same situation as the music industry. Google is both product provider and conduit, and they can do that because you can't steal their product.
Old 21st June 2010
  #344
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
I believe that the music industry should just turn its back on them outright and start catering to those folks who are legitimate customers.
You know, you can do that, but I still think you're making a major mistake by writing off an entire generation of what used to be your PRIME audience. They may not be customers of recorded works, but they go to concerts, so they ARE customers bottom line. They may not be customers of your recorded work by the DO consume it!
Old 21st June 2010
  #345
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
As a music consumer myself, I would be very angry indeed if I had to listen to a Radio Shack commercial before I could listen to the track I wanted to.
Yes, but you can still have a choice to OWN the product, or you can hear an ad and listen to the music.... much like what happens on Hulu or Youtube or other video outlets.
Old 21st June 2010
  #346
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
upload 10 minutes of silence to youtube and win a free ticket to the next lady gaga concert."
I remember hearing that many labels did exactly that with napster back in the day, tried to flood the market with mp3 files that looped the same section over and over. Why did they stop?
Old 21st June 2010
  #347
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I remember hearing that many labels did exactly that with napster back in the day, tried to flood the market with mp3 files that looped the same section over and over. Why did they stop?
Interesting.. I never knew that.. but it sounds like a good idea..
Old 21st June 2010
  #348
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
looks like R. Stevie Moore is still on the money..

one of Zappas favorites

YouTube - R. Stevie Moore - There's No Place For The Young... (2007)

a little light relief.
Old 21st June 2010
  #349
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I remember hearing that many labels did exactly that with napster back in the day, tried to flood the market with mp3 files that looped the same section over and over. Why did they stop?
It was often called "P2P interdiction". Companies still exist that do this (eg. Media Defender). However, I think most copyright agencies have come to realize their money is better spent lobbying for better laws and enforcement. Particularly since most piracy these days happens through centrally moderated torrent sites.
Old 21st June 2010
  #350
Here for the gear
 

UH

Do you not take into consideration that alot of us go BROKE to make music for YOU the listener?Equipment,software,Light bills,RENT it all cost for us to create.Would you let me come in your house eat all your food and sleep on your couch in exchange for me to make you good music?
I think not obviously you don't even think you should pay for our music at all.No one persons craft should be free unless everything in life comes for free with it.I think I speak for alot of us musicians when I say we starve ourselves buying all the right tools for the job and spend hours away from friends and family for the love of music and all we would like is for the people we make it for to appreciate it enough to pay a small amount for what we put into it.
Old 21st June 2010
  #351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
I'm not arguing anything of the sort, all I'm saying is when someone takes your recording and makes it available for either free or for sale, which I find even more offensive, without getting your permission, that is stealing. And actually the "for free" propagators of this argument are saying once you make the recording you have no say, look at the title of the thread.
It's illegal and wrong, but it's a copyright violation, not stealing.

It's not removing something from their possession and it's not preventing them from reselling it. In some cases, for instance pirating and reselling in a market where the author wouldn't be able to sell it themselves, it's not taking income that they would have otherwise made.

I agree with your point, but I think it's more effectively made discussing the copyright aspect because it's making an unnecessary analogy that people can legitimately argue with. And of course arguing with an analogy is BS, but it distracts from the point.
Old 21st June 2010
  #352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
BS. I'm so sick of people rationalizing theft by trying to get into semantic arguements about how it's actually 'copy right infringement', not theft, which I assume is where you are about to go. If you do, then you are completely irrelevant to this conversation, since you are just an appologist for people who are stealing. When you are talking about making a mix tape CD for a friend, that I would call copyright infringement. But wholesale copying on a scale larger than legal sales is just freaking theft and if you try to rationalize that away with semantics then you probably are one of those people.
But copyright is more accurate and more encompassing. Calling it theft makes it something you can successfully argue with. You can't argue with it being a copyright violation.
Old 21st June 2010
  #353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Walker View Post
The title of this thread is "Music should be free. If you don't want it "stolen" then don't record it." I wonder if the OP feels the same about other intellectual property.

How about "If you don't want your work plagerized, don't write it."...or "If you don't want your patent infringed upon, don't invent it."

Anyone who creates intelluctual property deserves to be compensated for such work if there is any demand for that work. I wish I had a dollar for every time this issue comes up in the law classes I teach.
I agree with your intent, but I don't think you've phrased it accurately.

You're hired to teach a class if you teach it identically 10 times verbatim you will be compensated for that work. And you probably have raises built in.

However, if each year you invent a new analogy for a legal concept (and it's not one of those situations where every bit of IP is owned by your employer) you've created new IP. You hold the copyright and could use it in a book that you decide to write at some point.

Not all created IP should be compensated. The author of the work should be allowed to control it a make choice to only publicize it, perform it or teach it if it's specifically compensated for.

The flaw is saying that authorship = compensation. Authorship = control/choice regarding compensation.
Old 21st June 2010
  #354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
The only way laws are fluxing is towards clamping down on illegal activity. Copyright law has not been revamped or retracted. It is still the law of the land, for incredibly obvious reasons that stretch back four hundred years.
Most of the key aspect of copyright law go back to 1976, not 400 years.
Old 21st June 2010
  #355
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
imo. the more you call it theft the more youtube and google will ignore you. because the legal implication would be one of aiding and abetting.

even Viacom aren't calling it theft.
Old 21st June 2010
  #356
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
There is ONLY ONE part of prohibition that I'm using for analogy, and that is that PUBLIC OPINION was not changed by changing the law.
You don't need an analogy, just say copyright infringement and be done with it.


The analogy of illegally downloading music should be illegally downloading music.
Old 21st June 2010
  #357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
People of course always bring up Google as a company making a lot of money by giving stuff away. But they aren't giving away anything. If they were giving it away, then they'd let anyone copy their huge databases and set up competing search engines. You have to go to Google to get it, so the fact that you don't pay anything isn't the point. You are paying with your time, which allows them to sell advertising. But only because you can't steal what they are offering. You can only get it from them, whether they choose to make you pay for it or not.

So those types of models are not relevant to the music industry, because its product can be stolen and therefore none of the models that depend on ads can work if you can't force people to come to you, even to get it for free. And of course way too many people are such degenerates that they'd still steal it rather than see an ad, or run ad blockers.
Google is a good analogy. They give away search services to be in the advertising business.

Bands can give away music to be in the merch or ticket sales business.
Old 21st June 2010
  #358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
This is the "new business model" that's being hyped by the Wall Street crowd. It threatens to absolutely kill artistic innovation in music outside of academic or hobbyist environments.
I'm not going to disagree, but I will say that there have always been patrons of the arts and I'd bet that there has been a wide range of how they've used their influential options from what you're suggesting to 100% trust and faith in the artist.
Old 21st June 2010
  #359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post

Bands can give away music to be in the merch or ticket sales business.
Which you'd have to admit was a limited solution, as not everyone who makes a recording is a band, nor do we all have tickets to sell.
As to theft or copyright infringement etc, yes you are right of course.
However the new business model lobby want to characterize copyright law as unfair and/or greedy.
Copyright is easily argued against, as we've seen on this forum.
But the nitty gritty of it is that some people are getting something for nothing that they shouldn't be taking.
Semantics aside, it's wrong and it's harmful to the creative industries in my view.
Old 21st June 2010
  #360
Lives for gear
 

Mike, have you ever considered compiling your posts into one response each time? 7/9 responses on this page are yours so far.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump