What is wrong with that. If they suck no one will buy their work, hence: free market.
I totaly agree with you that so much of the music put out by the labels, but wouldn't you like to decide what is good to you as a individual, rather than it being pushed down your throat by the music companies.
Like Solip says. And to add...how on earth would I be able to choose for myself? I don't have the time to even begin to listen through 100 horrid intros in order to find one that may show promise. So I would have to look at the 'Most Popular' section, and we'd be back to square 1. And by the way, no music company ever pushed music down my throat. They may have tried and I may have let them try, but if I didn't like it I would vomit. I think we underestimate people. Music doesn't get pushed down people's throats. A lot of people like crap music and that is why the companies push that music. You seem to suggest the companies dictate. If everyone liked [insert obscure band of choice], then that is what they would push. Do you like Celine Dion? Me neither (apologies to all you Celine lovers out there), and I bet no record company could ever 'push it down your throat' no matter how hard they tried.
It is a free market and you can start a company that will allow anyone and everyone to put up any "music" they create, but for a free market to actually work it has to be a place where people can find what they want. A confusing cluster of really bad music will not be where people will shop. Having a great voice or being able to play an instrument does not a good musician make. There also needs to be good written music and lyrics and production. As you agreed, most of the music from the labels is garbage. How would that get better if the filter were to go away completely? It would make it even harder to find good music. What you propose would not work because the free market would not want it.
That is what ratings are for, total downloads, etc. The current set-up of itunes may not be idea for a huge influx of new music. But that is what creativity is for.
Maybe create two sections, pro / amateur?
That way there still would be complete access to all music but a "filter" would still be in place.
But if you think about it a "filter" is really the same as a censor, it is created to filter out offensive material. And what is offensive to one may not be to another. Same with music, what some people listen too I hate and visa versa.
Really the end point is that cd's are almost obsolete in a lot of ways because even at a well stocked best buy most of the music is stuff im not looking for. You have to order it. To me I rather get it when I want it. (positive or negative as it may be)
But I think you would agree that the current form of music distribution is not going to last long.
Like Solip says. And to add...how on earth would I be able to choose for myself? I don't have the time to even begin to listen through 100 horrid intros in order to find one that may show promise. So I would have to look at the 'Most Popular' section, and we'd be back to square 1. And by the way, no music company ever pushed music down my throat. They may have tried and I may have let them try, but if I didn't like it I would vomit. I think we underestimate people. Music doesn't get pushed down people's throats. A lot of people like crap music and that is why the companies push that music. You seem to suggest the companies dictate. If everyone liked [insert obscure band of choice], then that is what they would push. Do you like Celine Dion? Me neither (apologies to all you Celine lovers out there), and I bet no record company could ever 'push it down your throat' no matter how hard they tried.
Your right maybe I went a little to stereotype with that. In my mind I am thinking more about how the same songs are always on the radio and such.
Haha ya some people do have bad taste, but ya its their choice.
I think Apple are afraid that the labels would pull their catalog of music from iTunes. That's the only reason I can think of.
But yeah what a great deal for Apple and the artists under the scenario you propose. I think its called a 'win-win' deal for both sides.
just 1 of those spare cash billions Apple has in the bank would buy a whole lotta investment in NEW artists, you know, the ones that the record labels are ignoring/havent "discovered" yet.
of course to get to the point where the music artists are comparable to the software developers, the musicians need to arrive at Apple with some product already recorded, sadly I doubt that many musicians will invest in an end product the same way as a software developer HAS to
but for the few that would, Apple would be a good way to go, hell they shift more music product than walmart!
I wonder if the Psystar campers think that Apple was in the right when the used Eminim's song without consent. As long as they paid the $0.99 for the track they would be the "end user." haha
It would be interesting to know whether the Labels rolling over on the question of DRM was in order to avoid this licensing/distribution argument. Somebody did the sums and made a calculation I suspect.
interesting thought.
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
Pirate Bay's arguments are mostly just defensive justifications for stuff that they simply "want to do." They are the arguments of a privileged teenager, not a noble libertarian thrust. If no one had arrested them or if it wasn't illegal, they would not even be making them. I mean the main Pirate Bay guy is hardly a genius or anything and has been very consistent in stating his case along the lines of "I do this because I want to, and I should be allowed to do what I want."
This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.
As I pay my TV licence, If I record (digitally) a TV show on the BBC and retain it, as millions have done now for decades, that is LEGAL.
Yet if I miss that show, and don't want the questionable picture quality offered by the FREE iPlayer service (think Hulu without ads) that the BBC offer for 30 days after the show is shown; and instead I go on a torrent site and download a hi quality recording someone else made apparently THAT THEN becomes ILLEGAL.
but in all honesty, at least part of what the Pirate bay mob are saying is : WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?
for myself I can see none, except that someone made an arbitrary decision as to what constitutes legal and illegal.
yeah! they rap over some of the new stuff Hendrix has been doing lately, its interesting, but I don't think the worlds ready for it JUST yet, maybe next year??
As I pay my TV licence, If I record (digitally) a TV show on the BBC and retain it, as millions have done now for decades, that is LEAGAL.
In the UK, you are allowed to retain a recording *only* long enough to watch it later. You are not legally allowed to record shows in order to create and archive, nor are you allowed to record shows for repeated viewings.
From the UK Intellectual Property Office: "A recording of a broadcast can be made in domestic premises for private and domestic use to enable it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time. This time-shifting exception does not cover the making of recordings for placing in a collection for repeated viewing or listening; and use of recordings other than to time-shift a programme for yourself or your family is likely to be illegal."
As I pay my TV licence, If I record (digitally) a TV show on the BBC and retain it, as millions have done now for decades, that is LEAGAL.
Yet if I miss that show, and don't want the questionable picture quality offered by the FREE iPlayer service (think Hulu without ads) that the BBC offer for 30 days after the show is shown; and instead I go on a torrent site and download a hi quality recording someone else made apparently THAT THEN become ILLEGAL.
but in all honesty at least part of what the Pirate bay mob are saying is : WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?
for myself I can see none, except that someone made an arbitrary decision as to what constitutes legal and illegal.
What is illegal is redistributing content without license or consent, which is what people are doing by making their video and music libraries available online. Granted, it is a passive form of distribution, but it is distribution. Sure, you can make a copy or two for yourself, but you can't distribute or broadcast it without paying a licensing or royalty fee. That's why radio stations pay royalties for the songs they play, and why technically any retail establishment that plays copyrighted music is supposed to pay royalty fees, even though the vast majority never do.
It's funny how if we were taking about shoplifting apples, people would call it stealing, but since we are talking about an intangible, specifically a piece of music, people seem to be fine with taking without paying.
This is a bit off topic but this Pirate Bay argument is flawed.
What they don't take into account (and deliberately fail to mention), i
...
This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.
Well, somehow it's interesting that the Pirate Bay thing (legal or not) and what Eminem does in his lawsuit comes down to one and the same:
The music industry - as we know it today - is a middle man. That middle man didn't exist back in Mozart or Bethoovens ages and maybe the digital age has made their business case hard to sustain. The artist is still there and the audience is still there - but how does the performance reach the audience? How does the artist earn money?
In both cases the middle man is fighting for their existence. In one end their revenue and in the otheri their share.
But do we need them at all? Or rather - will the middle man whoever it is earn their money on selling records or not? Right or wrong - sometimes business models becomes obsolete.
and I'll say it again, before someone else does, when the hell are Apple going to become a record company and give artists the same deal as iPhone devs with the 70/30 split, once they sign up to apple?
Nice thought. So would the artists be responsible for writing/recording/producing their own tracks? If that was the case iTunes would be a bit short on material.
Title pretty much sums it up, these guys make millions off the people that can least afford it and then want more.
It is unfortunate that we don't have any agressive leadership in Washington right now as the right thing to do is to clean up the whole copy right system. The best thing to do there is to give people 7 years protection and that is it.
Title pretty much sums it up, these guys make millions off the people that can least afford it and then want more.
It is unfortunate that we don't have any agressive leadership in Washington right now as the right thing to do is to clean up the whole copy right system. The best thing to do there is to give people 7 years protection and that is it.
Dave
What in the he** are you even talking about? If anything republicans fight for extended copyright protection harder than liberals do. Many liberals would rather have things become communal property a lot faster (which is what happens after copyright protection goes away) while if conservatives think about copyright at all, they generally want a lot of copyright protection, if not unending copyright protection.
But really, for the most part, there are very few politicians that can understand, let alone care about copyright law enough to have any stance whatsoever. It's just not a big issue to anybody these days.
Nobody could be less of a rap or hip hop fan than than me (John Bonham's kick is the lowest thing I'll ever pipe through a car stereo), but only a fool would make the case that Eminem has anything but extreme talent. Not that he needs his ego inflated, but to compare him to Vanilla Ice is ignorant, to say the least.
Interesting debate chaps. re Paxman's 'who would filter out the crap' reasoning. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for a new form of an old media - web radio stations. Aspiring artistes would send their demos to them - 'stations' would identify themselves by genre - and they would pick out the good ones and stream them as a 'radio' show. The service could be paid for by advertisements, subscription or even by setting up their own iTunes-esque direct sales section. A new model for a new media age - what do you think?
Interesting debate chaps. re Paxman's 'who would filter out the crap' reasoning. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for a new form of an old media - web radio stations. Aspiring artistes would send their demos to them - 'stations' would identify themselves by genre - and they would pick out the good ones and stream them as a 'radio' show. The service could be paid for by advertisements, subscription or even by setting up their own iTunes-esque direct sales section. A new model for a new media age - what do you think?
Doesn't that sort of thing almost kinda exist? There are sites where people can upload and listen to each other's tracks. There is a busy community of musicians out there. But in terms of getting this music to the masses, I doubt it would work. There are dj's out there that champion new bands' work, and there probably should be more of that. But you'd need a DJ with a very distinct voice that people trust. UK resident will remember John Peel from the BBC as an example. Not an easy thing just to 'set up'. John Peel was always a niche DJ and he was a household name.
Also, who would advertise on a show like that? Your prime audience alternative college students with no disposable income ;-(
I guess there are things a bit like that (not that i would really know, being a bit of an old fart meself!) but as Apple showed with the iPod, sometimes it takes someone to take an existing concept and turn it into something that really takes off because it is done very well. I wouldn't have thought it too hard to set such a thing up, and one of the wonders of the internet is that things can get around very quickly - how many views did that fat bloke dancing in front of his webcam get on YouTube!
John Peel was something of a phenomenon I agree - how many bands did he 'break'? Bless 'im!
Who would advertise to students? Beer companies and loan sharks?
Comments
What is wrong with that. If they suck no one will buy their work, hence: free market.
I totaly agree with you that so much of the music put out by the labels, but wouldn't you like to decide what is good to you as a individual, rather than it being pushed down your throat by the music companies.
Like Solip says. And to add...how on earth would I be able to choose for myself? I don't have the time to even begin to listen through 100 horrid intros in order to find one that may show promise. So I would have to look at the 'Most Popular' section, and we'd be back to square 1. And by the way, no music company ever pushed music down my throat. They may have tried and I may have let them try, but if I didn't like it I would vomit. I think we underestimate people. Music doesn't get pushed down people's throats. A lot of people like crap music and that is why the companies push that music. You seem to suggest the companies dictate. If everyone liked [insert obscure band of choice], then that is what they would push. Do you like Celine Dion? Me neither (apologies to all you Celine lovers out there), and I bet no record company could ever 'push it down your throat' no matter how hard they tried.
It is a free market and you can start a company that will allow anyone and everyone to put up any "music" they create, but for a free market to actually work it has to be a place where people can find what they want. A confusing cluster of really bad music will not be where people will shop. Having a great voice or being able to play an instrument does not a good musician make. There also needs to be good written music and lyrics and production. As you agreed, most of the music from the labels is garbage. How would that get better if the filter were to go away completely? It would make it even harder to find good music. What you propose would not work because the free market would not want it.
That is what ratings are for, total downloads, etc. The current set-up of itunes may not be idea for a huge influx of new music. But that is what creativity is for.
Maybe create two sections, pro / amateur?
That way there still would be complete access to all music but a "filter" would still be in place.
But if you think about it a "filter" is really the same as a censor, it is created to filter out offensive material. And what is offensive to one may not be to another. Same with music, what some people listen too I hate and visa versa.
Really the end point is that cd's are almost obsolete in a lot of ways because even at a well stocked best buy most of the music is stuff im not looking for. You have to order it. To me I rather get it when I want it. (positive or negative as it may be)
But I think you would agree that the current form of music distribution is not going to last long.
Like Solip says. And to add...how on earth would I be able to choose for myself? I don't have the time to even begin to listen through 100 horrid intros in order to find one that may show promise. So I would have to look at the 'Most Popular' section, and we'd be back to square 1. And by the way, no music company ever pushed music down my throat. They may have tried and I may have let them try, but if I didn't like it I would vomit. I think we underestimate people. Music doesn't get pushed down people's throats. A lot of people like crap music and that is why the companies push that music. You seem to suggest the companies dictate. If everyone liked [insert obscure band of choice], then that is what they would push. Do you like Celine Dion? Me neither (apologies to all you Celine lovers out there), and I bet no record company could ever 'push it down your throat' no matter how hard they tried.
Your right maybe I went a little to stereotype with that. In my mind I am thinking more about how the same songs are always on the radio and such.
Haha ya some people do have bad taste, but ya its their choice.
Celine Dion....never hahahaha
+++
I think Apple are afraid that the labels would pull their catalog of music from iTunes. That's the only reason I can think of.
But yeah what a great deal for Apple and the artists under the scenario you propose. I think its called a 'win-win' deal for both sides.
just 1 of those spare cash billions Apple has in the bank would buy a whole lotta investment in NEW artists, you know, the ones that the record labels are ignoring/havent "discovered" yet.
of course to get to the point where the music artists are comparable to the software developers, the musicians need to arrive at Apple with some product already recorded, sadly I doubt that many musicians will invest in an end product the same way as a software developer HAS to
but for the few that would, Apple would be a good way to go, hell they shift more music product than walmart!
I wonder if the Psystar campers think that Apple was in the right when the used Eminim's song without consent. As long as they paid the $0.99 for the track they would be the "end user." haha
I can see that post right now!
It would be interesting to know whether the Labels rolling over on the question of DRM was in order to avoid this licensing/distribution argument. Somebody did the sums and made a calculation I suspect.
interesting thought.
----
Pirate Bay's arguments are mostly just defensive justifications for stuff that they simply "want to do." They are the arguments of a privileged teenager, not a noble libertarian thrust. If no one had arrested them or if it wasn't illegal, they would not even be making them. I mean the main Pirate Bay guy is hardly a genius or anything and has been very consistent in stating his case along the lines of "I do this because I want to, and I should be allowed to do what I want."
This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.
As I pay my TV licence, If I record (digitally) a TV show on the BBC and retain it, as millions have done now for decades, that is LEGAL.
Yet if I miss that show, and don't want the questionable picture quality offered by the FREE iPlayer service (think Hulu without ads) that the BBC offer for 30 days after the show is shown; and instead I go on a torrent site and download a hi quality recording someone else made apparently THAT THEN becomes ILLEGAL.
but in all honesty, at least part of what the Pirate bay mob are saying is : WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?
for myself I can see none, except that someone made an arbitrary decision as to what constitutes legal and illegal.
Eminem- he's right up there with Vanilla Ice.
No... Eminem has money.
i
for myself I can see none, except that someone made an arbitrary decision as to what constitutes legal and illegal.
Oh come on, ALL laws are arbitrary!
yeah! they rap over some of the new stuff Hendrix has been doing lately, its interesting, but I don't think the worlds ready for it JUST yet, maybe next year??
As I pay my TV licence, If I record (digitally) a TV show on the BBC and retain it, as millions have done now for decades, that is LEAGAL.
In the UK, you are allowed to retain a recording *only* long enough to watch it later. You are not legally allowed to record shows in order to create and archive, nor are you allowed to record shows for repeated viewings.
From the UK Intellectual Property Office: "A recording of a broadcast can be made in domestic premises for private and domestic use to enable it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time. This time-shifting exception does not cover the making of recordings for placing in a collection for repeated viewing or listening; and use of recordings other than to time-shift a programme for yourself or your family is likely to be illegal."
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-o...excep-priv.htm
As I pay my TV licence, If I record (digitally) a TV show on the BBC and retain it, as millions have done now for decades, that is LEAGAL.
Yet if I miss that show, and don't want the questionable picture quality offered by the FREE iPlayer service (think Hulu without ads) that the BBC offer for 30 days after the show is shown; and instead I go on a torrent site and download a hi quality recording someone else made apparently THAT THEN become ILLEGAL.
but in all honesty at least part of what the Pirate bay mob are saying is : WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?
for myself I can see none, except that someone made an arbitrary decision as to what constitutes legal and illegal.
What is illegal is redistributing content without license or consent, which is what people are doing by making their video and music libraries available online. Granted, it is a passive form of distribution, but it is distribution. Sure, you can make a copy or two for yourself, but you can't distribute or broadcast it without paying a licensing or royalty fee. That's why radio stations pay royalties for the songs they play, and why technically any retail establishment that plays copyrighted music is supposed to pay royalty fees, even though the vast majority never do.
It's funny how if we were taking about shoplifting apples, people would call it stealing, but since we are talking about an intangible, specifically a piece of music, people seem to be fine with taking without paying.
This is a bit off topic but this Pirate Bay argument is flawed.
What they don't take into account (and deliberately fail to mention), i
...
This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.
Well, somehow it's interesting that the Pirate Bay thing (legal or not) and what Eminem does in his lawsuit comes down to one and the same:
The music industry - as we know it today - is a middle man. That middle man didn't exist back in Mozart or Bethoovens ages and maybe the digital age has made their business case hard to sustain. The artist is still there and the audience is still there - but how does the performance reach the audience? How does the artist earn money?
In both cases the middle man is fighting for their existence. In one end their revenue and in the otheri their share.
But do we need them at all? Or rather - will the middle man whoever it is earn their money on selling records or not? Right or wrong - sometimes business models becomes obsolete.
Aww who am I kiddin, I suck musically.
and I'll say it again, before someone else does, when the hell are Apple going to become a record company and give artists the same deal as iPhone devs with the 70/30 split, once they sign up to apple?
Nice thought. So would the artists be responsible for writing/recording/producing their own tracks? If that was the case iTunes would be a bit short on material.
.
It is unfortunate that we don't have any agressive leadership in Washington right now as the right thing to do is to clean up the whole copy right system. The best thing to do there is to give people 7 years protection and that is it.
Dave
Title pretty much sums it up, these guys make millions off the people that can least afford it and then want more.
It is unfortunate that we don't have any agressive leadership in Washington right now as the right thing to do is to clean up the whole copy right system. The best thing to do there is to give people 7 years protection and that is it.
Dave
What in the he** are you even talking about? If anything republicans fight for extended copyright protection harder than liberals do. Many liberals would rather have things become communal property a lot faster (which is what happens after copyright protection goes away) while if conservatives think about copyright at all, they generally want a lot of copyright protection, if not unending copyright protection.
But really, for the most part, there are very few politicians that can understand, let alone care about copyright law enough to have any stance whatsoever. It's just not a big issue to anybody these days.
Interesting debate chaps. re Paxman's 'who would filter out the crap' reasoning. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for a new form of an old media - web radio stations. Aspiring artistes would send their demos to them - 'stations' would identify themselves by genre - and they would pick out the good ones and stream them as a 'radio' show. The service could be paid for by advertisements, subscription or even by setting up their own iTunes-esque direct sales section. A new model for a new media age - what do you think?
Doesn't that sort of thing almost kinda exist? There are sites where people can upload and listen to each other's tracks. There is a busy community of musicians out there. But in terms of getting this music to the masses, I doubt it would work. There are dj's out there that champion new bands' work, and there probably should be more of that. But you'd need a DJ with a very distinct voice that people trust. UK resident will remember John Peel from the BBC as an example. Not an easy thing just to 'set up'. John Peel was always a niche DJ and he was a household name.
Also, who would advertise on a show like that? Your prime audience alternative college students with no disposable income ;-(
Doesn't that sort of thing almost kinda exist? (
I guess there are things a bit like that (not that i would really know, being a bit of an old fart meself!) but as Apple showed with the iPod, sometimes it takes someone to take an existing concept and turn it into something that really takes off because it is done very well. I wouldn't have thought it too hard to set such a thing up, and one of the wonders of the internet is that things can get around very quickly - how many views did that fat bloke dancing in front of his webcam get on YouTube!
John Peel was something of a phenomenon I agree - how many bands did he 'break'? Bless 'im!
Who would advertise to students? Beer companies and loan sharks?