[B]This is completely false! Most non-famous musicians only make money at small gigs. That 3 bucks you give the bouncer at the door... is frequently the only money that the musicians make. Sometimes the bar gets a cut and sometimes the bar takes it all and pays the band a pre-arranged amount. Also, T-shirts only cost a few bucks to make... go out and investigate how much it costs to have 100 shirts printed. Its pretty damn cheap. Local musicians also just burn CDRs and photocopy inserts at the local copy shop. Once again, investment in a stock of band related merchandise is pretty cheap.
You just rehashed what i said. Smalltown bar gigs pay very little. And T-shirts cost more than a "few bucks" to make. You have to take into consideration the cost of the shirt, then the actual cost of any imprinting you want to do on it. Same with cds. Between the blank cd's, the cost of material for the inserts, the cases, then having the burning process and printing process done. Not to mention if you want to have a decent sounding cd you're going to want to record with decent equipment. I have a friend who just signed on with indi records, and he managed to do all the recording himself, but his setup costs around 10k, and that's just starting out, no frills, no extras, just your basic recording equipment. You'd be lucky to make a couple bucks per cd/shirt.
Quote:
It is nearly impossible for musicians to make money with a major-label distributed and promoted CD. However, nearly all professional musicians at least partially support themselves with local gigs and intermittent tours with cover bands. Basically, while I agree with the motivation for copyrights, they aren't achieving their intended goal in the music industry. They aren't promoting creative endeavor by musicians and are, IMHO, hurting the music industry by perpetuating an inefficient and unsustainable economic model.
i'd also add that the music label provides the recording studio, sometimes the artwork, the equipment, etc.. and yes I do agree that gigs do help, but not to the extent they should. When you have the likes of ticketmaster raping you, your profit starts to go out the door.
You bet your filthy copywrong apologist ass it is.
PS I love/hate my emotional/rational split/personality
if we never paid for music, how would artists be given compensation for the time, money and effort they put into making this music, so that they can continue to do so? Should only the rich be able to make music?
What i find most amusing, is the fact that it seems people are arguing the same point, but the means to reach a resolution has led everyone down their own path.
I think everyone can pretty much agree that the music labels are evil and the artists need to be paid what they're due(well some of you don't even believe the artists should get paid).
The popular opinion(and I guess I just can't seem to grasp the concept behind it) is making music "free".
I'm simply saying there needs to be a new business model in place. You simply can't pull the proverbial(music labels) rug out from under the artists and expect everything to be fine, it'd become chaotic.
If I paint a painting, write a book or a song I should own that painting, book, or song. You should not be able to duplicate that painting, book, or song without compensating me. My opinion, possibly not yours or someone else?s.
1) It would be depriving the current owner (Apple, Reseller, Individual) of their actual property.
2) Apple doesn't collude with Dell, HP and IBM to keep the price of PC cum workstations high. Apple just sells 'em at a high price and no-one buys them.
Notice a) the smiley, and b) the "Oranges for $14.99" quote I was referring to in my post.
if we never paid for music, how would artists be given compensation for the time, money and effort they put into making this music, so that they can continue to do so? Should only the rich be able to make music?
Please READ my posts before replying to them.
We work on a system of producer/consumer. The consumer recieves Wages for Labour, Rent for Land, Interest for Capital, and Profit for Enterprise. With that income, the consumer purchases goods and services.
Businesses used to compete on the best economic model, and hence the biggest profit for the producer. That worked with commodities. However, technology like computers are not commodities. They have to be designed. The same applies to art. Art is good. It's part of culture.
However, artists need to be "enabled" to create art. Artists can't produce art for free and do nothing else. They'd starve and die. Hence copyright. Copyright exists to supply a safe minimum amount of money to the artist, so they can be "enabled" to produce art and not starve and die.
It's slightly different with products like computers. Businesses compete on economic models still. It's not like they would recieve no money on their product if copyright didn't exist. However, where's the incentive? Why should a business design a product if all other companies would copy it? There is a DISincentive, as the business is spending money that other companies don't have to. So copyright exists to provide and incentive to create products. Again, a safe minimum incentive is what should be aimed for.
The question which SHOULD be asked is this; "If respect for copyright by individuals is not enforced, will artists/businesses continue to receive enough money to continue to create art/products?"
The question that SHOULDN'T be asked is this; "Are artists/businesses recieving the money that THEY want for every single use of their creative or unique work?"
The reason for the producer/consumer system, and copyright, is to ensure that consumers all get the most possible goods and services. The latter question is the polar opposite of the "public interest", because it's artifically reducing the goods and services consumers recieve.
Artists are now 99% of the time consumers. No doubt they want the most goods and services they can get. Some artists (ie musicians) don't see a dime anymore for their labours. All the enabling money they should recieve due to copyright is ending up in the hands of a few "gatekeepers". The system we have now with regards to music is the worst of both worlds. Not only do we only get art from those desperate enough to create it for free, but that art is controlled by the "gatekeepers" so that we the people cannot legally buy it at a market price or use it how we want.
A copyright system where a safe minimum of enabling money is distributed to artists and businesses without personal freedom being sacrificed is probably achievable. Hopefully I won't be dead by the time such a system is put in place.
fahlman, If that opinion was made law and enforced, the world would collapse. The metaphorical cogs in the machine that is the world would freeze up. It is simply impossible to create every product/artwork competely from scratch for every single product/artwork made. Shakespear's plays could not be written today, as they violated modern copyright.
RazzFazz, I noticed that you were joking. However, the point you raised was actually a valid one. Are there some cases where a company's actions are harmful to society? Yes.
If it were a perfect world, there'd only be short clips of each song on a P2P that you could download, or even a full song that could only be played once or twice before it expunges itself.
Sounds more like a living hell to me. What good is ANY art if the public cannot have access to it, at a reasonable price? Right now, the ONLY competition record lables have is P2P. Without P2P, the iTunes Music Store wouldn't have started, because the record lables would not have been forced to start internet music services.
I've read your post, and replied accordingly because you're a broken record barto
Quote:
Sounds more like a living hell to me. What good is ANY art if the public cannot have access to it, at a reasonable price? Right now, the ONLY competition record lables have is P2P. Without P2P, the iTunes Music Store wouldn't have started, because the record lables would not have been forced to start internet music services.
I fail to see your logic here. If you are able to download a song(the whole thing) and listen to it x amount of times before it expires, and if you decide you like it, you can purchase it, how does the public not have access to it?
Also the iTunes has short clips of music you can listen to before deciding if you want to buy or not. So this also falls under your "living hell?" But you're coming off as preaching it a good thing. So which is it?
It seems like you're really split on how you want things to turn out.
If I paint a painting, write a book or a song I should own that painting, book, or song. You should not be able to duplicate that painting, book, or song without compensating me. My opinion, possibly not yours or someone else?s.
And would that still be your opinion if you were infected with a deadly disease that could be cured by following a procedure outlined in a book that I wrote - a book that you cannot have because you can't provide me with the compensation I am asking for?
So - would you steal it and live or die having remained true to your principals?
I fail to see your logic here. If you are able to download a song(the whole thing) and listen to it x amount of times before it expires, and if you decide you like it, you can purchase it, how does the public not have access to it?
Also the iTunes has short clips of music you can listen to before deciding if you want to buy or not. So this also falls under your "living hell?" But you're coming off as preaching it a good thing. So which is it?
It seems like you're really split on how you want things to turn out.
You're talking about totally different things. The last thing I want is a world where people are controlled. Apple can control their music service. It's good being able to "try before you buy". I don't have a problem with businesses charging money for their products. Duh.
But it would be a living hell where no individual can share ideas, files, whatever with out individuals. Here's a few sentances of what I want to say to you about a book I just read, you'll have to pay Big Media before I can tell you the rest.
The internet is a reflection of daily life. There are interactions between big companies and individuals. Then there is the interaction between all the individuals on the 'net. An example of this is AppleInsider. In the end, the only thing that really counts is the interaction of individuals. That is, P2P, both on the 'net and in real life. The only reason business exists is as a tool to improve this interaction and to improve the standard of living for each individual. When people are controlled, there is very little interaction.
Using P2P to obtain music files is alot like speeding or taking home office supplies - all three are breaking the law - but many people don't seem to care - because they don't see the harm in doing so.
Comments
Originally posted by dfiler
[B]This is completely false! Most non-famous musicians only make money at small gigs. That 3 bucks you give the bouncer at the door... is frequently the only money that the musicians make. Sometimes the bar gets a cut and sometimes the bar takes it all and pays the band a pre-arranged amount. Also, T-shirts only cost a few bucks to make... go out and investigate how much it costs to have 100 shirts printed. Its pretty damn cheap. Local musicians also just burn CDRs and photocopy inserts at the local copy shop. Once again, investment in a stock of band related merchandise is pretty cheap.
You just rehashed what i said. Smalltown bar gigs pay very little. And T-shirts cost more than a "few bucks" to make. You have to take into consideration the cost of the shirt, then the actual cost of any imprinting you want to do on it. Same with cds. Between the blank cd's, the cost of material for the inserts, the cases, then having the burning process and printing process done. Not to mention if you want to have a decent sounding cd you're going to want to record with decent equipment. I have a friend who just signed on with indi records, and he managed to do all the recording himself, but his setup costs around 10k, and that's just starting out, no frills, no extras, just your basic recording equipment. You'd be lucky to make a couple bucks per cd/shirt.
It is nearly impossible for musicians to make money with a major-label distributed and promoted CD. However, nearly all professional musicians at least partially support themselves with local gigs and intermittent tours with cover bands. Basically, while I agree with the motivation for copyrights, they aren't achieving their intended goal in the music industry. They aren't promoting creative endeavor by musicians and are, IMHO, hurting the music industry by perpetuating an inefficient and unsustainable economic model.
i'd also add that the music label provides the recording studio, sometimes the artwork, the equipment, etc.. and yes I do agree that gigs do help, but not to the extent they should. When you have the likes of ticketmaster raping you, your profit starts to go out the door.
Originally posted by Barto
You bet your filthy copywrong apologist ass it is.
PS I love/hate my emotional/rational split/personality
if we never paid for music, how would artists be given compensation for the time, money and effort they put into making this music, so that they can continue to do so? Should only the rich be able to make music?
I think everyone can pretty much agree that the music labels are evil and the artists need to be paid what they're due(well some of you don't even believe the artists should get paid).
The popular opinion(and I guess I just can't seem to grasp the concept behind it) is making music "free".
I'm simply saying there needs to be a new business model in place. You simply can't pull the proverbial(music labels) rug out from under the artists and expect everything to be fine, it'd become chaotic.
Originally posted by Barto
No, for two reasons.
1) It would be depriving the current owner (Apple, Reseller, Individual) of their actual property.
2) Apple doesn't collude with Dell, HP and IBM to keep the price of PC cum workstations high. Apple just sells 'em at a high price and no-one buys them.
Notice a) the smiley, and b) the "Oranges for $14.99" quote I was referring to in my post.
Originally posted by liquidh2o
if we never paid for music, how would artists be given compensation for the time, money and effort they put into making this music, so that they can continue to do so? Should only the rich be able to make music?
Please READ my posts before replying to them.
We work on a system of producer/consumer. The consumer recieves Wages for Labour, Rent for Land, Interest for Capital, and Profit for Enterprise. With that income, the consumer purchases goods and services.
Businesses used to compete on the best economic model, and hence the biggest profit for the producer. That worked with commodities. However, technology like computers are not commodities. They have to be designed. The same applies to art. Art is good. It's part of culture.
However, artists need to be "enabled" to create art. Artists can't produce art for free and do nothing else. They'd starve and die. Hence copyright. Copyright exists to supply a safe minimum amount of money to the artist, so they can be "enabled" to produce art and not starve and die.
It's slightly different with products like computers. Businesses compete on economic models still. It's not like they would recieve no money on their product if copyright didn't exist. However, where's the incentive? Why should a business design a product if all other companies would copy it? There is a DISincentive, as the business is spending money that other companies don't have to. So copyright exists to provide and incentive to create products. Again, a safe minimum incentive is what should be aimed for.
The question which SHOULD be asked is this; "If respect for copyright by individuals is not enforced, will artists/businesses continue to receive enough money to continue to create art/products?"
The question that SHOULDN'T be asked is this; "Are artists/businesses recieving the money that THEY want for every single use of their creative or unique work?"
The reason for the producer/consumer system, and copyright, is to ensure that consumers all get the most possible goods and services. The latter question is the polar opposite of the "public interest", because it's artifically reducing the goods and services consumers recieve.
Artists are now 99% of the time consumers. No doubt they want the most goods and services they can get. Some artists (ie musicians) don't see a dime anymore for their labours. All the enabling money they should recieve due to copyright is ending up in the hands of a few "gatekeepers". The system we have now with regards to music is the worst of both worlds. Not only do we only get art from those desperate enough to create it for free, but that art is controlled by the "gatekeepers" so that we the people cannot legally buy it at a market price or use it how we want.
A copyright system where a safe minimum of enabling money is distributed to artists and businesses without personal freedom being sacrificed is probably achievable. Hopefully I won't be dead by the time such a system is put in place.
fahlman, If that opinion was made law and enforced, the world would collapse. The metaphorical cogs in the machine that is the world would freeze up. It is simply impossible to create every product/artwork competely from scratch for every single product/artwork made. Shakespear's plays could not be written today, as they violated modern copyright.
RazzFazz, I noticed that you were joking. However, the point you raised was actually a valid one. Are there some cases where a company's actions are harmful to society? Yes.
If it were a perfect world, there'd only be short clips of each song on a P2P that you could download, or even a full song that could only be played once or twice before it expunges itself.
Sounds more like a living hell to me. What good is ANY art if the public cannot have access to it, at a reasonable price? Right now, the ONLY competition record lables have is P2P. Without P2P, the iTunes Music Store wouldn't have started, because the record lables would not have been forced to start internet music services.
Barto
Sounds more like a living hell to me. What good is ANY art if the public cannot have access to it, at a reasonable price? Right now, the ONLY competition record lables have is P2P. Without P2P, the iTunes Music Store wouldn't have started, because the record lables would not have been forced to start internet music services.
I fail to see your logic here. If you are able to download a song(the whole thing) and listen to it x amount of times before it expires, and if you decide you like it, you can purchase it, how does the public not have access to it?
Also the iTunes has short clips of music you can listen to before deciding if you want to buy or not. So this also falls under your "living hell?" But you're coming off as preaching it a good thing. So which is it?
It seems like you're really split on how you want things to turn out.
If I paint a painting, write a book or a song I should own that painting, book, or song. You should not be able to duplicate that painting, book, or song without compensating me. My opinion, possibly not yours or someone else?s.
And would that still be your opinion if you were infected with a deadly disease that could be cured by following a procedure outlined in a book that I wrote - a book that you cannot have because you can't provide me with the compensation I am asking for?
So - would you steal it and live or die having remained true to your principals?
Originally posted by liquidh2o
I fail to see your logic here. If you are able to download a song(the whole thing) and listen to it x amount of times before it expires, and if you decide you like it, you can purchase it, how does the public not have access to it?
Also the iTunes has short clips of music you can listen to before deciding if you want to buy or not. So this also falls under your "living hell?" But you're coming off as preaching it a good thing. So which is it?
It seems like you're really split on how you want things to turn out.
You're talking about totally different things. The last thing I want is a world where people are controlled. Apple can control their music service. It's good being able to "try before you buy". I don't have a problem with businesses charging money for their products. Duh.
But it would be a living hell where no individual can share ideas, files, whatever with out individuals. Here's a few sentances of what I want to say to you about a book I just read, you'll have to pay Big Media before I can tell you the rest.
The internet is a reflection of daily life. There are interactions between big companies and individuals. Then there is the interaction between all the individuals on the 'net. An example of this is AppleInsider. In the end, the only thing that really counts is the interaction of individuals. That is, P2P, both on the 'net and in real life. The only reason business exists is as a tool to improve this interaction and to improve the standard of living for each individual. When people are controlled, there is very little interaction.
That is why your idea is a living hell.
Barto