On a related note, this is probably the most mature conversation I've ever witnessed on a subject like this... no yelling or obnoxious name-calling or all-caps posts or anything.
I like this board.
I'd venture an attempt at a definition of morality, but I'm likely to make a fool of myself. (my roommate has a philosophy degree so I've learned to think before I speak too deeply about philosophy, natch) Any takers, though?
With every purchase of any given DVD/CD burner/player
you have bought the right to copy too. Pun intended
This is because, the manufactures of said units are
paying a certain amount of money to the music industry.
Also, if you're buying 100 DVD-Rs, you're paying a certain amount to
the music industry. And that's it, a no brainer imho.
That depends upon which country you live in. I am pretty sure this is not true in either the U.S. or the U.K.
I think this system is ridiculous. Why should there be this assumption that if I'm buying a CD-R, I'm buying it to burn music on to? And if I'm buying a DVD-R, I'm buying it to burn a film on to? There are plenty of other legitimate uses of both media, why should the entertainment industry get any money in those circumstances?
Additionally, how do they work out which artist should get the royalties? If you think that royalties are antiquated, and that all artists should be paid the same no matter how much money they have made for or cost their employer, then fair enough. I do not agree, I think that royalties are the least-bad solution* to deciding who gets paid what. Yes, this results in some people being "too rich", but that is the fault of the government not taxing them enough. Edit: And even worse than that, how do you decide which companies get the money? There are thousands of record companies, movie studios, and software developers. Should they all get an equal share?
Another problem is that even in the countries where the entertainment industry gets income from copying-hardware and blank media, I believe that this money is not intended by the government to be a replacement for the industry's traditional income. The laws were introduced as an acknowledgement that piracy exists, and to attempt to offset the loss that this entails.
* although the big five could improve their implementation. another edit! Big four.
These standards are mostly shaped by the society they live in and the sub-groups (families, etc...) they were raised in or simply live in.
What is "moral" is essentially synonymous with what is "right", if that's an easier way to think of it.
So, for simplification:
"moral" = "right"
"immoral" = "wrong"
Piracy, to me, doesn't fit either category, it's in the grey area between, like so many other things in life.
Indeed. In terms of religions, morality has traditionally concerned dividing all actions into either "right" or "wrong", "moral" or "immoral", "good" or "evil". Being so black and white about it seems ridiculous to me, so I have refrained from using the words "moral" or "immoral" to describe an action. However, I still find that I have "morals" or a system of morality, because I do think about whether actions are "acceptable" or not, on a sliding scale. Perhaps I should not use these words (as they imply a "black and white" system), but I don't know of any other words which are more appropriate and easily understood.
Piracy, to me, doesn't fit either category, it's in the grey area between, like so many other things in life.
How true, it seems like every time I get ready to buy an alblum or a movie, I hear about some over-paid spoiled hollywood celeb ODing, having a sultry afair, getting in trouble with the law, or some other thing that by which any non-celeb would be ruined; then the very next line is something like "(celeb name here) made x-million dollars for 3 months worth of reading a script into a camera!"
I have often said that if I get a compunction to buy something from the **AA I just watch MTV cribs and suddenly I have no interest in buying (or even bootleging for that matter) any of their pap.
I will say this, with all the DRM and whatnot, the suing of fans, and the audacity of big name artists like Metalica to trash the fan base, they have balls.
Sad part is these celebs live off of those of us who work for a living when most of them wouldnt know a hard days work if it bit them in the ass
If you think that royalties are antiquated, and that all artists should be paid the same no matter how much money they have made for or cost their employer, then fair enough. I do not agree, I think that royalties are the least-bad solution* to deciding who gets paid what.
Since I made the comment about royalties and payment systems, I will respond to this. (By the way, excellent point about the hardware tax.)
Let me recap my problems with the royalty system.
1. As it is practiced in the entertainment industry, the royalty system is inherently unfair. Royalties are based on how well a project does financially. It has nothing to do with how well the actors acted or how well the singers sang. It has to do with the work of agents and publicists and marketers and who slept with whom and who owes whom a favor and retail space deals and countless other factors that have nothing to do with the talent associated with making the art. One singer makes a thousand dollars from a great song that suffered from too little air time and bad marketing. Another singer makes a million dollars from a bad song that caught all the breaks. Unfair.
2. Royalties encourage the get rich easy, jackpot mentality. Do a little work now; get paid a lot of money disproportionate to the work you did later. No good thing can come of this.
3. It suggests that the work of entertainers is priceless. Their work has no objective value. You can't put a price on an hour's worth of great acting or a well performed song. Rubbish! If you can put an objective and finite price on what athletes, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and educators do, you should be able to price out the services of entertainers as well.
4. Royalties keep the populous from ever owning art. I know this philosophical perspective is not shared by many, but consider the point of view before shooting it down. Art does not belong to the studio execs, nor for that matter, the artists who produce it. Art belongs to the world. The more we monetize it, the more we destroy it. It is like water. No one should ever have their water shut off by a utility company because they did not pay a utility bill. Frankly, having water piped into your home ought to be a part of any civilized tax system. I suppose you can pay someone to purify it, bottle it, package it, and deliver it. But in the end, if you draw breath on this planet, the water belongs to you. The same goes for air, things that grow, meat, and the like. They are resources for all, not to be exploited by the powerful against the weak.
To me, art is the same type of universal resource. It is a part of the human condition. It is human nature to sing and fashion instruments and dance and act and to listen to and watch others do the same. My ability to do some of these things means that I have a responsibility to those who don't. I am an artist which means I am one of many stewards of a resource that belongs to the rest of the world. After getting paid a reasonable fee for carrying out my duties, the art I produce should belong to the world. The royalty system ensures that there can never be a reasonable fee for what I do and the art will never belong to you. You will always be beholden to me for using my precious work. This is wrong and contradictory to the human spirit.
I am still in the process of forming my opinions on these matters. So you are welcome to point out the inconsistencies in my arguments. I also very much appreciate the civility of this emotionally charged issue. Also, to the original poster, you have taken quite a few punches and still hang in there. You are a classy guy... wrong, but classy.
2. Royalties encourage the get rich easy, jackpot mentality. Do a little work now; get paid a lot of money disproportionate to the work you did later. No good thing can come of this.
3. It suggests that the work of entertainers is priceless. Their work has no objective value. You can't put a price on an hour's worth of great acting or a well performed song. Rubbish! If you can put an objective and finite price on what athletes, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and educators do, you should be able to price out the services of entertainers as well.
Well, i just don't get your arguments. I have no clue,
what you are talking about. Perhaps it is just me.
Well, i just don't get your arguments. I have no clue,
what you are talking about. Perhaps it is just me.
So you mean, you just straight do not comprehend, or you comprehend but disagree?
Good post Mac Voyer.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
It has nothing to do with how well the actors acted or how well the singers sang.
Surely this statement hinges on personal taste?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
It has to do with the work of agents and publicists and marketers and who slept with whom and who owes whom a favor and retail space deals and countless other factors that have nothing to do with the talent associated with making the art.
Whilst it is true that these things can influence the success of a song, I like to think that the quality and/or uniqueness of the song is also a significant factor. If a song is selling by the bucket-load, this must mean that a lot of people enjoy listening to it?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
2. Royalties encourage the get rich easy, jackpot mentality. Do a little work now; get paid a lot of money disproportionate to the work you did later. No good thing can come of this.
3. It suggests that the work of entertainers is priceless. Their work has no objective value. You can't put a price on an hour's worth of great acting or a well performed song. Rubbish! If you can put an objective and finite price on what athletes, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and educators do, you should be able to price out the services of entertainers as well.
4. Royalties keep the populous from ever owning art. I know this philosophical perspective is not shared by many, but consider the point of view before shooting it down. Art does not belong to the studio execs, nor for that matter, the artists who produce it. Art belongs to the world. The more we monetize it, the more we destroy it. It is like water. No one should ever have their water shut off by a utility company because they did not pay a utility bill. Frankly, having water piped into your home ought to be a part of any civilized tax system. I suppose you can pay someone to purify it, bottle it, package it, and deliver it. But in the end, if you draw breath on this planet, the water belongs to you. The same goes for air, things that grow, meat, and the like. They are resources for all, not to be exploited by the powerful against the weak.
To me, art is the same type of universal resource. It is a part of the human condition. It is human nature to sing and fashion instruments and dance and act and to listen to and watch others do the same. My ability to do some of these things means that I have a responsibility to those who don't. I am an artist which means I am one of many stewards of a resource that belongs to the rest of the world. After getting paid a reasonable fee for carrying out my duties, the art I produce should belong to the world. The royalty system ensures that there can never be a reasonable fee for what I do and the art will never belong to you. You will always be beholden to me for using my precious work. This is wrong and contradictory to the human spirit.
As far as I can tell, these are anti-capitalist sentiments. I find that whilst communist ideals seem fantastic in theory, they fail to take account of some of the uglier sides of humanity, such as greed and laziness. Capitalism, on the other hand, panders somewhat to these things (but that is not the only thing that makes it work). As such, I think that capitalism is the least-bad solution for running society, but as it stands there is not enough government intervention to stop it getting out of control.
Given that there is a capitalist economic system, there are great risks involved in deciding to become an actor or a singer. If you do not achieve sufficient recognition, your income is likely to be highly sporadic, and on average relatively low. As such, I feel that there need to be potential rewards proportionate to the level of risk involved, to encourage sufficient numbers of people to be actors, singers etc.
[i]Whilst it is true that these things can influence the success of a song, I like to think that the quality and/or uniqueness of the song is also a significant factor. If a song is selling by the bucket-load, this must mean that a lot of people enjoy listening to it?[/B]
I would like to think so too. But I know better. The fact is, people will consume music and other forms of entertainment, period. People will enjoy consuming good music. But if the only choice is mediocre or worse, it will still sell. Like food, we must consume art. This is a critical element of my thesis. Industry leaders know the buying public will consume the best of whatever they are fed. But a relatively small number of people decide what options the public has to choose from. Therefore, if a great musician with a great song goes unsigned, and if signed, goes unheard, it has nothing to do with them not being good enough. And if given the choice, consumers would very likely buy bucket-loads of that great musician's work.
The industry is not designed to produce great musicians, it is designed to produce stars and idols and heartthrobs. Becoming a star and selling boatloads has traditionally had more to do with airtime. If you can't get played, you can't get paid. radio airtime has more to do with back-room deals than talent. Having a little experience with this industry gives me a little insight into how it really works. There are plenty of good books you can read on the subject if you're interested in learning more. There are many pop stars who could not carry a tune it a basket but who had the right look and personality that the execs were trying to sell at the time. They simply fix all the bad notes in the edit. I heard one story of a popular singer who was so bad, the producers had her sing everything in a monotone so that they could just apply the right pitch to each note later. This is pretty easy to do. The idea of that singer deserving boatloads of money for being loosely associated with a catchy tune defies reason.
Anti-capitalist ideas? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Even capitalists understand the need to heavily regulate, or in some cases, outright control certain public trusts. To me, art come near being in that category. If the entertainment industry wants to be treated like a purely capitalistic enterprise, then it must have something to sell that I can purchase and then completely own. A CD does not qualify. You are only granted limited use of the CD. You do not own the content. Nor do you own the right to use that CD anyway you please. The entertainment industry sells nothing. That defies the spirit of capitalism. Though frankly, I'm not the greatest defender of capitalism. Unchecked, it is truly a dangerous thing.
As far as I can tell, these are anti-capitalist sentiments.
Having thought about it some more, I think I was overstating it somewhat. It would still be possible for most of Mac Voyer's ideas to be implemented within a wider capitalist system.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
4. Royalties keep the populous from ever owning art. I know this philosophical perspective is not shared by many, but consider the point of view before shooting it down. Art does not belong to the studio execs, nor for that matter, the artists who produce it. Art belongs to the world. The more we monetize it, the more we destroy it. It is like water. No one should ever have their water shut off by a utility company because they did not pay a utility bill. Frankly, having water piped into your home ought to be a part of any civilized tax system. I suppose you can pay someone to purify it, bottle it, package it, and deliver it. But in the end, if you draw breath on this planet, the water belongs to you. The same goes for air, things that grow, meat, and the like. They are resources for all, not to be exploited by the powerful against the weak.
I'm pretty sure the only way to ensure the populace owned the art, would be for it to be paid for through taxation. If this were the case, then there would be no such thing as piracy when it came to art.
Alternatively, in order to account for your other points, but not point 4, the industry could just make singers, songwriters, actors etc. salaried employees, perhaps with bonuses if their song/composition/film does particularly well. If this were implemented, I would consider piracy to be equally unacceptable as it is under the current system.
I heard one story of a popular singer who was so bad, the producers had her sing everything in a monotone so that they could just apply the right pitch to each note later. This is pretty easy to do. The idea of that singer deserving boatloads of money for being loosely associated with a catchy tune defies reason.
I was under the impression that if the singer was just a "performer" and had no part in writing the lyrics or the music, that they were unlikely to receive particularly high volumes of royalties.
I let my friends copy my music CDs all the time, and vice versa. It's a cool way to share music, and in the end we all end up enjoying a wider range of music than we ever would have without the copying. Then we go to more concerts than before, and we buy more CDs than before, etc. It's not a one way street where we just copy the music and then forget about it.
As for your buddies borrowing CDs or DVDs and then copying them, ummmm, what did you expect?
I mean, if we're going to parse it down, do these artists really deserve to get filthy rich off of royalties, i.e., off of doing NOTHING while people buy shit they wrote years ago? Not very long ago, a musician had to perform his music to make a living, no performance, no money. A very fine system when you think about it. Nowadays we have rock stars making millions off a single album and then sitting on the couch for 5 years shooting money into their veins and generally disintegrating when they should be writing and performing. It's more like we're doing them a favor by copying their CDs.
Anyways, my personal opinion is that, 1. I don't care what other people choose to do, and 2., if I like something I've copied, I try to buy something else from that artist, or go to see them in concert. They make more money off ticket sales than CD sales normally, so seeing them live is the better way to atone for the sin of copying their digitized art.
My favorite form of music is Jazz, and one of the reasons I think it's so good is that back in the golden age of Jazz, the musicians were all working musicians - they all had to work for a living. No sitting around getting high off royalty money. Also, their contracts didn't forbid them from working with other musicians, so they could play and record with everybody else in the entire scene, making for a very rich sharing of ideas. To duplicate the same model today, we would have to distribute music over the internet for free and pay bands for live performances - obviously not going to happen with giant record companies. But someday, you never know, something magical could happen!
well, if it is any consolation, the average burned disk doesn't last longer than 2 years before the dyes in the burned disk start fading away to a point that is unreadable by DVD players anymore. Dyes last (according to cnet) no longer than 5 years on average.
So your friend's burned copy won't last more than 5 years before he/she starts wondering why the movie is skipping like no tomorrow.
You can easily find quality DVD-R & DVD+R that will last 100 years. You just have to pay a little more and get good brands.
I'll believe 100 years when I see it. You also have to realize that '100 years' figure also takes into account optimal storage conditions, lack of handling, and lack of playing. If you play the DVD more often, it is more likely to fail. Playing generates a lot of heat on the disc; that heat is far from beneficial for the life of the disc. So *maybe* you can reach that 100 years if you lock down the disc under optimal storage conditions (humidity, temperature, etc.) in some air-tight container, but the whole point is to be able to watch it.
Comments
It seems that without everybody here being aware of the exact definition of morality, it's rather difficult to argue about anything related to it.
Originally posted by skatman
You peeps seem to agrue a lot about the actions in relation to morality... can anybody give me a definition of morality?
It seems that without everybody here being aware of the exact definition of morality, it's rather difficult to argue about anything related to it.
I refer you to my first post in this thread. Or does that not go far enough?
On a related note, this is probably the most mature conversation I've ever witnessed on a subject like this... no yelling or obnoxious name-calling or all-caps posts or anything.
I like this board.
I'd venture an attempt at a definition of morality, but I'm likely to make a fool of myself. (my roommate has a philosophy degree so I've learned to think before I speak too deeply about philosophy, natch) Any takers, though?
Originally posted by mynamehere
Here's yet another way to look at it. Would this friend have legally bought these DVDs if you hadn't given them to him/her?
Or better, would he have bought these DVDs, if you gave him
the money to buy previously? Or would he rather pick up the money
and rip the DVD from someone else?
Seriously...
This is really a nice thread with some very interesting
ideas about copyright. I think there is pretty much said
about the subject here. It is seemingly hard to decide, who is
the bad guy and who is the hero in this plot.
Someone threw in the example with the duo
tape recorders. These were times
this is a pretty good example what the whole
game is about. It is about technical improvements
for individuals who enjoy music, film and... life. Plain and simple.
With every purchase of any given DVD/CD burner/player
you have bought the right to copy too. Pun intended
This is because, the manufactures of said units are
paying a certain amount of money to the music industry.
Also, if you're buying 100 DVD-Rs, you're paying a certain amount to
the music industry. And that's it, a no brainer imho.
There is no need to feel uncomfortably borrowing and
copying something digitally - film music etc. This is a very
false attitude. This attitude tells me that the music industry
brainwashed you already.
The only ones who do not understand these simple facts
is the music industry itself. And this is because they want to
maximize profits. And that's all about. The music industry
should overthink their irrational business model.
My 2 cents
These standards are mostly shaped by the society they live in and the sub-groups (families, etc...) they were raised in or simply live in.
What is "moral" is essentially synonymous with what is "right", if that's an easier way to think of it.
So, for simplification:
"moral" = "right"
"immoral" = "wrong"
Piracy, to me, doesn't fit either category, it's in the grey area between, like so many other things in life.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Plain and simple.
With every purchase of any given DVD/CD burner/player
you have bought the right to copy too. Pun intended
This is because, the manufactures of said units are
paying a certain amount of money to the music industry.
Also, if you're buying 100 DVD-Rs, you're paying a certain amount to
the music industry. And that's it, a no brainer imho.
That depends upon which country you live in. I am pretty sure this is not true in either the U.S. or the U.K.
I think this system is ridiculous. Why should there be this assumption that if I'm buying a CD-R, I'm buying it to burn music on to? And if I'm buying a DVD-R, I'm buying it to burn a film on to? There are plenty of other legitimate uses of both media, why should the entertainment industry get any money in those circumstances?
Additionally, how do they work out which artist should get the royalties? If you think that royalties are antiquated, and that all artists should be paid the same no matter how much money they have made for or cost their employer, then fair enough. I do not agree, I think that royalties are the least-bad solution* to deciding who gets paid what. Yes, this results in some people being "too rich", but that is the fault of the government not taxing them enough. Edit: And even worse than that, how do you decide which companies get the money? There are thousands of record companies, movie studios, and software developers. Should they all get an equal share?
Another problem is that even in the countries where the entertainment industry gets income from copying-hardware and blank media, I believe that this money is not intended by the government to be a replacement for the industry's traditional income. The laws were introduced as an acknowledgement that piracy exists, and to attempt to offset the loss that this entails.
* although the big five could improve their implementation. another edit! Big four.
Originally posted by groverat
Morality is a person's accepted ethical.
These standards are mostly shaped by the society they live in and the sub-groups (families, etc...) they were raised in or simply live in.
What is "moral" is essentially synonymous with what is "right", if that's an easier way to think of it.
So, for simplification:
"moral" = "right"
"immoral" = "wrong"
Piracy, to me, doesn't fit either category, it's in the grey area between, like so many other things in life.
Indeed. In terms of religions, morality has traditionally concerned dividing all actions into either "right" or "wrong", "moral" or "immoral", "good" or "evil". Being so black and white about it seems ridiculous to me, so I have refrained from using the words "moral" or "immoral" to describe an action. However, I still find that I have "morals" or a system of morality, because I do think about whether actions are "acceptable" or not, on a sliding scale. Perhaps I should not use these words (as they imply a "black and white" system), but I don't know of any other words which are more appropriate and easily understood.
Originally posted by groverat
Piracy, to me, doesn't fit either category, it's in the grey area between, like so many other things in life.
How true, it seems like every time I get ready to buy an alblum or a movie, I hear about some over-paid spoiled hollywood celeb ODing, having a sultry afair, getting in trouble with the law, or some other thing that by which any non-celeb would be ruined; then the very next line is something like "(celeb name here) made x-million dollars for 3 months worth of reading a script into a camera!"
I have often said that if I get a compunction to buy something from the **AA I just watch MTV cribs and suddenly I have no interest in buying (or even bootleging for that matter) any of their pap.
I will say this, with all the DRM and whatnot, the suing of fans, and the audacity of big name artists like Metalica to trash the fan base, they have balls.
Sad part is these celebs live off of those of us who work for a living when most of them wouldnt know a hard days work if it bit them in the ass
Originally posted by Mr. H
If you think that royalties are antiquated, and that all artists should be paid the same no matter how much money they have made for or cost their employer, then fair enough. I do not agree, I think that royalties are the least-bad solution* to deciding who gets paid what.
Since I made the comment about royalties and payment systems, I will respond to this. (By the way, excellent point about the hardware tax.)
Let me recap my problems with the royalty system.
1. As it is practiced in the entertainment industry, the royalty system is inherently unfair. Royalties are based on how well a project does financially. It has nothing to do with how well the actors acted or how well the singers sang. It has to do with the work of agents and publicists and marketers and who slept with whom and who owes whom a favor and retail space deals and countless other factors that have nothing to do with the talent associated with making the art. One singer makes a thousand dollars from a great song that suffered from too little air time and bad marketing. Another singer makes a million dollars from a bad song that caught all the breaks. Unfair.
2. Royalties encourage the get rich easy, jackpot mentality. Do a little work now; get paid a lot of money disproportionate to the work you did later. No good thing can come of this.
3. It suggests that the work of entertainers is priceless. Their work has no objective value. You can't put a price on an hour's worth of great acting or a well performed song. Rubbish! If you can put an objective and finite price on what athletes, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and educators do, you should be able to price out the services of entertainers as well.
4. Royalties keep the populous from ever owning art. I know this philosophical perspective is not shared by many, but consider the point of view before shooting it down. Art does not belong to the studio execs, nor for that matter, the artists who produce it. Art belongs to the world. The more we monetize it, the more we destroy it. It is like water. No one should ever have their water shut off by a utility company because they did not pay a utility bill. Frankly, having water piped into your home ought to be a part of any civilized tax system. I suppose you can pay someone to purify it, bottle it, package it, and deliver it. But in the end, if you draw breath on this planet, the water belongs to you. The same goes for air, things that grow, meat, and the like. They are resources for all, not to be exploited by the powerful against the weak.
To me, art is the same type of universal resource. It is a part of the human condition. It is human nature to sing and fashion instruments and dance and act and to listen to and watch others do the same. My ability to do some of these things means that I have a responsibility to those who don't. I am an artist which means I am one of many stewards of a resource that belongs to the rest of the world. After getting paid a reasonable fee for carrying out my duties, the art I produce should belong to the world. The royalty system ensures that there can never be a reasonable fee for what I do and the art will never belong to you. You will always be beholden to me for using my precious work. This is wrong and contradictory to the human spirit.
I am still in the process of forming my opinions on these matters. So you are welcome to point out the inconsistencies in my arguments. I also very much appreciate the civility of this emotionally charged issue. Also, to the original poster, you have taken quite a few punches and still hang in there. You are a classy guy... wrong, but classy.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
2. Royalties encourage the get rich easy, jackpot mentality. Do a little work now; get paid a lot of money disproportionate to the work you did later. No good thing can come of this.
3. It suggests that the work of entertainers is priceless. Their work has no objective value. You can't put a price on an hour's worth of great acting or a well performed song. Rubbish! If you can put an objective and finite price on what athletes, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and educators do, you should be able to price out the services of entertainers as well.
Well, i just don't get your arguments. I have no clue,
what you are talking about. Perhaps it is just me.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Well, i just don't get your arguments. I have no clue,
what you are talking about. Perhaps it is just me.
So you mean, you just straight do not comprehend, or you comprehend but disagree?
Good post Mac Voyer.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
It has nothing to do with how well the actors acted or how well the singers sang.
Surely this statement hinges on personal taste?
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
It has to do with the work of agents and publicists and marketers and who slept with whom and who owes whom a favor and retail space deals and countless other factors that have nothing to do with the talent associated with making the art.
Whilst it is true that these things can influence the success of a song, I like to think that the quality and/or uniqueness of the song is also a significant factor. If a song is selling by the bucket-load, this must mean that a lot of people enjoy listening to it?
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
2. Royalties encourage the get rich easy, jackpot mentality. Do a little work now; get paid a lot of money disproportionate to the work you did later. No good thing can come of this.
3. It suggests that the work of entertainers is priceless. Their work has no objective value. You can't put a price on an hour's worth of great acting or a well performed song. Rubbish! If you can put an objective and finite price on what athletes, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and educators do, you should be able to price out the services of entertainers as well.
4. Royalties keep the populous from ever owning art. I know this philosophical perspective is not shared by many, but consider the point of view before shooting it down. Art does not belong to the studio execs, nor for that matter, the artists who produce it. Art belongs to the world. The more we monetize it, the more we destroy it. It is like water. No one should ever have their water shut off by a utility company because they did not pay a utility bill. Frankly, having water piped into your home ought to be a part of any civilized tax system. I suppose you can pay someone to purify it, bottle it, package it, and deliver it. But in the end, if you draw breath on this planet, the water belongs to you. The same goes for air, things that grow, meat, and the like. They are resources for all, not to be exploited by the powerful against the weak.
To me, art is the same type of universal resource. It is a part of the human condition. It is human nature to sing and fashion instruments and dance and act and to listen to and watch others do the same. My ability to do some of these things means that I have a responsibility to those who don't. I am an artist which means I am one of many stewards of a resource that belongs to the rest of the world. After getting paid a reasonable fee for carrying out my duties, the art I produce should belong to the world. The royalty system ensures that there can never be a reasonable fee for what I do and the art will never belong to you. You will always be beholden to me for using my precious work. This is wrong and contradictory to the human spirit.
As far as I can tell, these are anti-capitalist sentiments. I find that whilst communist ideals seem fantastic in theory, they fail to take account of some of the uglier sides of humanity, such as greed and laziness. Capitalism, on the other hand, panders somewhat to these things (but that is not the only thing that makes it work). As such, I think that capitalism is the least-bad solution for running society, but as it stands there is not enough government intervention to stop it getting out of control.
Given that there is a capitalist economic system, there are great risks involved in deciding to become an actor or a singer. If you do not achieve sufficient recognition, your income is likely to be highly sporadic, and on average relatively low. As such, I feel that there need to be potential rewards proportionate to the level of risk involved, to encourage sufficient numbers of people to be actors, singers etc.
Originally posted by Mr. H
[BGood post Mac Voyer.
Thanks.
[/B]
[i]Whilst it is true that these things can influence the success of a song, I like to think that the quality and/or uniqueness of the song is also a significant factor. If a song is selling by the bucket-load, this must mean that a lot of people enjoy listening to it?[/B]
I would like to think so too. But I know better. The fact is, people will consume music and other forms of entertainment, period. People will enjoy consuming good music. But if the only choice is mediocre or worse, it will still sell. Like food, we must consume art. This is a critical element of my thesis. Industry leaders know the buying public will consume the best of whatever they are fed. But a relatively small number of people decide what options the public has to choose from. Therefore, if a great musician with a great song goes unsigned, and if signed, goes unheard, it has nothing to do with them not being good enough. And if given the choice, consumers would very likely buy bucket-loads of that great musician's work.
The industry is not designed to produce great musicians, it is designed to produce stars and idols and heartthrobs. Becoming a star and selling boatloads has traditionally had more to do with airtime. If you can't get played, you can't get paid. radio airtime has more to do with back-room deals than talent. Having a little experience with this industry gives me a little insight into how it really works. There are plenty of good books you can read on the subject if you're interested in learning more. There are many pop stars who could not carry a tune it a basket but who had the right look and personality that the execs were trying to sell at the time. They simply fix all the bad notes in the edit. I heard one story of a popular singer who was so bad, the producers had her sing everything in a monotone so that they could just apply the right pitch to each note later. This is pretty easy to do. The idea of that singer deserving boatloads of money for being loosely associated with a catchy tune defies reason.
Anti-capitalist ideas? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Even capitalists understand the need to heavily regulate, or in some cases, outright control certain public trusts. To me, art come near being in that category. If the entertainment industry wants to be treated like a purely capitalistic enterprise, then it must have something to sell that I can purchase and then completely own. A CD does not qualify. You are only granted limited use of the CD. You do not own the content. Nor do you own the right to use that CD anyway you please. The entertainment industry sells nothing. That defies the spirit of capitalism. Though frankly, I'm not the greatest defender of capitalism. Unchecked, it is truly a dangerous thing.
I appreciate your insight Mr. H.
Originally posted by Mr. H
As far as I can tell, these are anti-capitalist sentiments.
Having thought about it some more, I think I was overstating it somewhat. It would still be possible for most of Mac Voyer's ideas to be implemented within a wider capitalist system.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
4. Royalties keep the populous from ever owning art. I know this philosophical perspective is not shared by many, but consider the point of view before shooting it down. Art does not belong to the studio execs, nor for that matter, the artists who produce it. Art belongs to the world. The more we monetize it, the more we destroy it. It is like water. No one should ever have their water shut off by a utility company because they did not pay a utility bill. Frankly, having water piped into your home ought to be a part of any civilized tax system. I suppose you can pay someone to purify it, bottle it, package it, and deliver it. But in the end, if you draw breath on this planet, the water belongs to you. The same goes for air, things that grow, meat, and the like. They are resources for all, not to be exploited by the powerful against the weak.
I'm pretty sure the only way to ensure the populace owned the art, would be for it to be paid for through taxation. If this were the case, then there would be no such thing as piracy when it came to art.
Alternatively, in order to account for your other points, but not point 4, the industry could just make singers, songwriters, actors etc. salaried employees, perhaps with bonuses if their song/composition/film does particularly well. If this were implemented, I would consider piracy to be equally unacceptable as it is under the current system.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I heard one story of a popular singer who was so bad, the producers had her sing everything in a monotone so that they could just apply the right pitch to each note later. This is pretty easy to do. The idea of that singer deserving boatloads of money for being loosely associated with a catchy tune defies reason.
I was under the impression that if the singer was just a "performer" and had no part in writing the lyrics or the music, that they were unlikely to receive particularly high volumes of royalties.
Originally posted by Mr. H
So you mean, you just straight do not comprehend, or you comprehend but disagree?
...
As for your buddies borrowing CDs or DVDs and then copying them, ummmm, what did you expect?
I mean, if we're going to parse it down, do these artists really deserve to get filthy rich off of royalties, i.e., off of doing NOTHING while people buy shit they wrote years ago? Not very long ago, a musician had to perform his music to make a living, no performance, no money. A very fine system when you think about it. Nowadays we have rock stars making millions off a single album and then sitting on the couch for 5 years shooting money into their veins and generally disintegrating when they should be writing and performing. It's more like we're doing them a favor by copying their CDs.
Anyways, my personal opinion is that, 1. I don't care what other people choose to do, and 2., if I like something I've copied, I try to buy something else from that artist, or go to see them in concert. They make more money off ticket sales than CD sales normally, so seeing them live is the better way to atone for the sin of copying their digitized art.
My favorite form of music is Jazz, and one of the reasons I think it's so good is that back in the golden age of Jazz, the musicians were all working musicians - they all had to work for a living. No sitting around getting high off royalty money. Also, their contracts didn't forbid them from working with other musicians, so they could play and record with everybody else in the entire scene, making for a very rich sharing of ideas. To duplicate the same model today, we would have to distribute music over the internet for free and pay bands for live performances - obviously not going to happen with giant record companies. But someday, you never know, something magical could happen!
So your friend's burned copy won't last more than 5 years before he/she starts wondering why the movie is skipping like no tomorrow.
Originally posted by groverat
You can easily find quality DVD-R & DVD+R that will last 100 years. You just have to pay a little more and get good brands.
I'll believe 100 years when I see it. You also have to realize that '100 years' figure also takes into account optimal storage conditions, lack of handling, and lack of playing. If you play the DVD more often, it is more likely to fail. Playing generates a lot of heat on the disc; that heat is far from beneficial for the life of the disc. So *maybe* you can reach that 100 years if you lock down the disc under optimal storage conditions (humidity, temperature, etc.) in some air-tight container, but the whole point is to be able to watch it.