Should Music Be FREE????

[shamann]

Okay, so what do you think?

BBC Article

So if I don't want in, and will happily purchase music through proper channels, but have an Internet connection, can I opt out from paying in to this scheme. Like blank media taxation before, I doubt it. Bunch of mindless bullshit.

[emdot_ambient]

Okay, so what do you think?

BBC Article

So if I don't want in, and will happily purchase music through proper channels, but have an Internet connection, can I opt out from paying in to this scheme. Like blank media taxation before, I doubt it. Bunch of mindless bullshit.

Technically I would think that IPS providers could filter opt-out subscribers from being able to download audio files, but since a lot of audio file formats can also include other data (or could be offered free by the file creator) . . . I think it's highly unlikely they'd try to go that route. So probably not. It's an interesting idea, kind of like how radio works, but it's probably not very practical in a real-world situation.

[deaf dunderkwac]

Okay, so what do you think?

BBC Article

so we would all get to pay 'something' money for -future- creations (whether we 'consumed' those creations or not) where the money rarely or in very small percentages gets back to the creators?


sounds like the current business plan.

[Spe3D]

Okay, so what do you think?

BBC Article

so we would all get to pay 'something' money for -future- creations (whether we 'consumed' those creations or not) where the money rarely or in very small percentages gets back to the creators?


sounds like the current business plan.

Yep! BBC has been working that way for years (just quoting you not reading the BBC link)

We 'ALL' in the UK have to pay a TV license if you own a TV set - regardless if or not the reception is bad - the fact that the other channels don't charge us over the terrestrial system, we cannot opt out of viewing the BBC - yet the BBC is as much (if not more so) a commercial enterprise as the other channels (our TV sucks btw as far as options go over say the USA)

Best regards,

Peter

[emdot_ambient]

Okay, so what do you think?
BBC Article

so we would all get to pay 'something' money for -future- creations (whether we 'consumed' those creations or not) where the money rarely or in very small percentages gets back to the creators?
sounds like the current business plan.

Yep! BBC has been working that way for years (just quoting you not reading the BBC link)

It wasn't proposed by the BBC, just an article on their web page. The proposal comes from a group of inndie music labels.

"Radio is probably the closest example I can give you," said Ms Wenham.

"It is delivered to the consumer apparently free, but behind the scenes there is a very complex licensing arrangement which remunerates the people who made the music."

[stefancrs]

Heh, you guys seem to be doing fine without me If there was something specific you still want me to respond to (except for being called wanker for no good reason that is ), bump the question and I'll get back to it after the weekend

[stefancrs]

Just a quick reply since I'm on my way out:
You don't think people would value and find a way for car models to be developed commercially even if it was free to make more intsances of said model?

Hmm...in any case, I don't think anyone should pay you for your efforts. Synthmaker should be FREE!!!!

Hypocritical Wanker.

FWIW, I think people should be paid for their efforts if they are valued and wanted. I've never stated the opposite.

Good night all!

[Rabid]

If music was free we would only get to listen to amatures.

[Spe3D]

Thank you emdot - I did not read it

Its pure luck that the tv analogy has some relevance though with regards to licensing - I just seen BBC, the comments, licensing and thought - yep! I can see them trying that out in the UK - if you have an Internet connection you have to pay a license - after all the internet will eventually be the main distribution of media over any other form including radio and television.

The only problem is going to be the corporations behind it could well become so big that it will exclude a good number of people access to the net - like SKY, AOL, Google, Yahoo, IBM, Microsoft etc. It could push out companies like the BBC (hard to think now) from partaking on the Internet too.

I cannot see an opt out being possible with such a scheme (and what about apple stuff etc) - what if you don't even like music, and just the weather - I guess they could have a media rich hub that subscribers could pay to be able to connect to.

Best regards,

Peter

[whyterabbyt]

Music doesn't seem to cost the birds, the cicadas, the crickets, the whales, or the spheres of the cosmos anything.

These things are not music, although some people might consider them 'musical'.

Almost all animal sounds are forms of communication; you might as well say music doesnt cost a newsreader for all it actually means.

As for 'the spheres of the cosmos', well I dont really think metaphysics is a great foundation for a logical argument about capitalism.

[Ubiety]

Music doesn't seem to cost the birds, the cicadas, the crickets, the whales, or the spheres of the cosmos anything.

These things are not music, although some people might consider them 'musical'.

Almost all animal sounds are forms of communication; you might as well say music doesnt cost a newsreader for all it actually means.

As for 'the spheres of the cosmos', well I dont really think metaphysics is a great foundation for a logical argument about capitalism.

You are referring to the definition of music and I am referring to the phenomenon of music. However we choose to articulate here could possibly only end up being a quarrel over semantics. Still, I only use the word music because there happens to be no other word for what I determine music to be. It is after all a matter of perspective which makes it a bit arbitrary. Again, I am not interested in the proclamations of Webster's or academia. I know the definition of music but that's not what I am referring to. I am referring to what I know to be music. The composer Olivier Messiaen happens to share my viewpoint (or rather I share his), at least on the topic of birdsong. He simply transcribed birdsong and incorporated the transcriptions into much of his music. And he considered birds to be the greatest musicians.

What does music do for you if it is not saying anything to you? For me and it seems many other people, music is without question communication. There are the talking drums of West Africa, for instance. The talking drums played with rhythms and accents based on actual languages were used to communicate over large distances for centuries. It became labeled and known as drum telegraphy by the Europeans. And they were banned in America because the slaves were telegraphing secret codes that their owners didn't understand. The very same talking drums that were used in what might be considered non-musical communication were also used in song and rituals incorporating, again, rhythms and accents based on language.

Ever look into any music native to India?

On the topic of metaphysics, I haven't been on it. How about physics? Pure and simple. That's where I'm at. Solar flares make sound. Pulsars make sound. The planet Earth vibrates and creates sound. I even read somewhere that lightning whistles in the Earth's magnetosphere and that the Aurora generates radio noise (technically not sound) that can sometimes interfere with high frequency radio. In fact every bit of matter has a frequency at which it vibrates. Scientists, musicians, and even laypersons will be able to pick out rhythms, timbre, fragments of melody, and even structure from the sounds and noise that the cosmos makes. I just lump it all together and call it music.

And as for economics, well, I did mention the natural laws of economics, i.e. The Law of Demand, The Law of Supply, and so on. What the universe does, what galaxies do, what stars do, what planets do, and what all living things do make for a most logical and imposing argument for economics on which capitalism is based.

I don't mean this to come off as sounding brash but you asked and I am just answering as best I can at this moment.

[pinkster]

mine's all free:
http://songplanet.com/jimipocius

i only make folks pay for the COVER SONGS i do.
; P

[laputa_sync]

thanks to all those who wrote in the thread, i was trying to think about if music should be free, i reckoned other people would have other ideas and have now got more to think about. peace

[TotcProductions]

Music doesn't seem to cost the birds, the cicadas, the crickets, the whales, or the spheres of the cosmos anything.

These things are not music, although some people might consider them 'musical'.

Almost all animal sounds are forms of communication; you might as well say music doesnt cost a newsreader for all it actually means.

As for 'the spheres of the cosmos', well I dont really think metaphysics is a great foundation for a logical argument about capitalism.

Well said sir, well said.

Peace

[Democritus]

Music should be hella cheap sold directly by the artist.