fjell_strom quoth
I find this a lovely sentiment which addresses the point on which everyone surely must agree: most musicians would like their music to reach people and to touch people. Some musicians would like to earn a living from doing that in some capacity. Could the "internet music piracy revolution/practice" simply be the front door to new avenues, modes, and trends of earning that living? Could the stigma be removed, a shift in thinking be acheived, and innovations be born which would utilise the inherent incalculable potential of the limitless sharing of data? I realise that shift adresses thousands of concepts and billions of lives.
In return, I ask this. If you feed the expectations of an increasing number of people who are used to getting something for nothing, at what point do you expect them to continue to value anything you might offer?
How do YOU feel about your music being pirated?
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35506 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRist
- 492 posts since 26 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver BC
Quoting Blackie Lawless, from WASP:
"You don't form a rock and roll band to sell records. You form it to sell T-Shirts."
K
"You don't form a rock and roll band to sell records. You form it to sell T-Shirts."
K
-
- KVRist
- 462 posts since 30 Nov, 2003
He is quite the hot head but I agree with his points. He doesn't simply refer to the stealing. He doesn't like the effect stealing might eventually have in music distribution(replacing CDs with digital istribution). Now I can't help but agree with that.kaden wrote:Honestly, Bones...you *need* to look into anger management...anyone who is subject to such blind, unthinking, utterly irrational rage is inevitably going to hurt either themselves or their loved ones.
When I download an album in MP3, it doesn't have the same emotional value to me as a CD. I listen to a 14 song album and I rarely think of it as a collection of 14 songs. I think of it as ONE piece of work. That's why I don't buy compilations. And by downloading an album, you're simply expanding a huge compilation of MP3s. Then you tend to listen to the songs you like the most and skip the ones you don't like as much. In many albums I own, my favourite songs are songs I didn't feel too crazy about initially. That never happened with albums I downloaded, and I ended up just forgeting about them. You end up listening to songs as individual pieces of work instead of being part of an album, a greater piece of work.
If all distribution went digital, I wouldn't buy albums anymore. The music would never feel the same. And as an artist I say the same. I'd rather have my albums out on CD and sell 2 copies a year than get rich selling millions of MP3s.
MP3s make music tasteless.
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35506 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Quoting the guy outside every gig you ever went to...
"Get your T-shirts here cheap"
"Get your T-shirts here cheap"
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
I think that's sort of the point with open source: devalue a commmodity that is not tied to resource scarcity, and build business models that are. Specifically, produce free software, then use service models for that software as your prime revenue source, since skilled labour is still a scarce resource. In fact, a lot of people make a reasonable living that way.whyterabbyt wrote:...there are very very few people involved in its creation who dont make their money from other, commercial, work. In fact there's often a parasitical/symbiotic relationship with the very industries they are competing against.
For example the expectation that people have of getting software for free is directly responsible for even open source developers abandoning projects; their altrusim isnt met with altruism on the parts of those using the stuff to save themselves money.
Thats why the founder of GenToo linux just took a job with Microsoft, by the way.
And for every open source project that dies, at least another springs up or survives it. There are always going to be dead branches, but such is life.
I actually think the music industry has a lot to learn from open source software, both good and bad. If nothing else, file-sharing has shown that business models centered around digital recordings of music are fairly vulnerable and open to violation.
While we've toed and froed on the subject amidst a lot of besides the point here, something we as musicians might be concerned about is how to recover old or invent new revenue streams for music makers and publishers. Sure the original question was about ethics, but all we are ever going to get on this is yes, no, or who cares.
-
- KVRAF
- 3964 posts since 31 Aug, 2003 from In a foreign town, in a foreign land
kaden wrote:Simple as that, huh? 'The Triumph of The Will'...its just a matter of will
(I'm looking up at the judges for a Godwin ruling)
No points, the jury has already packed their things and gone home.
This tread ceased to serve a purpose many, many postings ago.
Groet, Erik
Pop music delenda est.
-
- KVRist
- 492 posts since 26 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver BC
If you all feel that the ONLY way your music can make money is through unit sales via 'industry' channels, then I repeat:
Go Lemmings Go.
Although you may wanna read this for a glimpse at the future.
K
Go Lemmings Go.
Although you may wanna read this for a glimpse at the future.
K
-
- KVRAF
- 3964 posts since 31 Aug, 2003 from In a foreign town, in a foreign land
Having read the last couple of postings I can only agree.shamann wrote:Oh come on, it seems to have ebbed back to civil at least.
Until the next knee starts jerking, of course[1].
Groet, Erik
[1] it could be argued that my reactions are in a way knee-jerky, perhaps.
Pop music delenda est.
-
- KVRist
- 462 posts since 30 Nov, 2003
If that remark was directed at me, let me point out that I acknowledged that it is NOT the only way to make money. What I mean is that I find having actual CDs distributed much more appealing than having MP3s distributed and I'd rather have a bad career selling CDs than a stellar one selling MP3s.kaden wrote:If you all feel that the ONLY way your music can make money is through unit sales via 'industry' channels, then I repeat:
Go Lemmings Go.
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 14312 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
I've just read all this thread and f**k me I'm incensed now. I'll get the VOSA on the matter straight away after I've dealt with Mrs Clark's no X5 bus from Barnsley to Huddersfield being 5 minutes late last Sunday.
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35506 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
shamann quoth
I think that's sort of the point with open source: devalue a commmodity that is not tied to resource scarcity, and build business models that are. Specifically, produce free software, then use service models for that software as your prime revenue source, since skilled labour is still a scarce resource. In fact, a lot of people make a reasonable living that way.
The service model generally isnt working though. The primary sources of revenue for OS developers are still coming from 'traditional' companies leveraging the advantage of a large pool of volunteers, and perhaps a few paid in-house developers.
And skilled Indian labour in that field is helluva cheaper.
And for every open source project that dies, at least another springs up or survives it. There are always going to be dead branches, but such is life.
Yeah, but they're not always equivalent. And potential open source developers are typically attracted to a certain kind of 'cool' development; the mundane stuff (and the documentation) typically suffers while people develop yet another LAME front end.
I actually think the music industry has a lot to learn from open source software, both good and bad. If nothing else, file-sharing has shown that business models centered around digital recordings of music are fairly vulnerable and open to violation.
Certanly true.
While we've toed and froed on the subject amidst a lot of besides the point here, something we as musicians might be concerned about is how to recover old or invent new revenue streams for music makers and publishers. Sure the original question was about ethics, but all we are ever going to get on this is yes, no, or who cares.
To be honest, its probably easier on the 'fringes' where the 'collector mentality' thats been alluded to is stronger. After all, nobody's going to be able to pirate something you give away, and if what you sell is an 'artefact' then it has more 'value' to the collector than just being a disposable piece of music. And if you give away the music anyway, no-one can pirate it. Thats certainly the approach I'm taking.
I've also spent time thinking about how one could leverage the resources of groups of artists. Compared to the cost of a workstation synth, a CD duplicator isnt that expensive, for example. Half a dozen artists doing duplication-on-demand in different parts of the world is a distribution chain. IN a situation like that, if the artist in Europe gets a share, the duplicator in the USA gets the rest, and they both contribute back to a centralised 'label' for organisation, webspace, promotion and whatever, then maybe that'd work. It doesnt take much advantage of 'new revenue streams' though, just a more pragmatic approach to distribution.
I think that's sort of the point with open source: devalue a commmodity that is not tied to resource scarcity, and build business models that are. Specifically, produce free software, then use service models for that software as your prime revenue source, since skilled labour is still a scarce resource. In fact, a lot of people make a reasonable living that way.
The service model generally isnt working though. The primary sources of revenue for OS developers are still coming from 'traditional' companies leveraging the advantage of a large pool of volunteers, and perhaps a few paid in-house developers.
And skilled Indian labour in that field is helluva cheaper.
And for every open source project that dies, at least another springs up or survives it. There are always going to be dead branches, but such is life.
Yeah, but they're not always equivalent. And potential open source developers are typically attracted to a certain kind of 'cool' development; the mundane stuff (and the documentation) typically suffers while people develop yet another LAME front end.
I actually think the music industry has a lot to learn from open source software, both good and bad. If nothing else, file-sharing has shown that business models centered around digital recordings of music are fairly vulnerable and open to violation.
Certanly true.
While we've toed and froed on the subject amidst a lot of besides the point here, something we as musicians might be concerned about is how to recover old or invent new revenue streams for music makers and publishers. Sure the original question was about ethics, but all we are ever going to get on this is yes, no, or who cares.
To be honest, its probably easier on the 'fringes' where the 'collector mentality' thats been alluded to is stronger. After all, nobody's going to be able to pirate something you give away, and if what you sell is an 'artefact' then it has more 'value' to the collector than just being a disposable piece of music. And if you give away the music anyway, no-one can pirate it. Thats certainly the approach I'm taking.
I've also spent time thinking about how one could leverage the resources of groups of artists. Compared to the cost of a workstation synth, a CD duplicator isnt that expensive, for example. Half a dozen artists doing duplication-on-demand in different parts of the world is a distribution chain. IN a situation like that, if the artist in Europe gets a share, the duplicator in the USA gets the rest, and they both contribute back to a centralised 'label' for organisation, webspace, promotion and whatever, then maybe that'd work. It doesnt take much advantage of 'new revenue streams' though, just a more pragmatic approach to distribution.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRist
- 384 posts since 28 Nov, 2004 from Freiburg, Germany
At what point do I expect "them" to continue to value anything I might offer?whyterabbyt wrote:In return, I ask this. If you feed the expectations of an increasing number of people who are used to getting something for nothing, at what point do you expect them to continue to value anything you might offer?
I'll make this easy because complicated ain't cutting it.
I don't expect people to value.
I enjoy when others value things the way I do. But I don't expect it out of anyone.
Do you?
"Your petty insults are of no consequence." --Jp22
Songs
Songs
-
- KVRAF
- 4222 posts since 23 Feb, 2004 from Tucson Arizona USA
The concept of "rights" is always a two-way street.
You may have a right to stuff like copy protection or control of distribution, and that's fine.
But if you protect that right too aggressively, to the point of eliminating distribution methods, or making all recording devices unable to copy, you're getting into the territory where protecting your interests abridges my rights. I think it's paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes to say "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
It is not acceptable collateral damage in your "war on piracy" that I have to pay a tax on recording media, or that I'm required to use one-way codecs where I'm not allowed to keep my work in the digital domain, or if entire distribution channels are forcibly closed because someone might use them to infringe someone else's distribution rights.
You may have a right to stuff like copy protection or control of distribution, and that's fine.
But if you protect that right too aggressively, to the point of eliminating distribution methods, or making all recording devices unable to copy, you're getting into the territory where protecting your interests abridges my rights. I think it's paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes to say "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
It is not acceptable collateral damage in your "war on piracy" that I have to pay a tax on recording media, or that I'm required to use one-way codecs where I'm not allowed to keep my work in the digital domain, or if entire distribution channels are forcibly closed because someone might use them to infringe someone else's distribution rights.