Pirate Bay trial
category: general [glöplog]
This thread is badly in need of some soundcape
let's go back to swapping and stamp faking
dubmood: I am working in the field and I can see what music publishers are doing. What you said was true and acceptable before the Internet and mp3 files came, although it was still very exploitive and often unethical.
Today publishers are boldly standing in a way of natural distribution which is hundreds time more effective than the old media like radio or TV. Actually, by statistics, most active customers get more info on the Internet than on TV.
So I hear what you are saying, but the model the publishers are pursuing is outdated - they just don't want to give it up because when it was there they were on top.
As for TPB making some money or even large money - well, why not? They do not pay you, but they also don't censor anyone. They are not making money directly on content. They are providing a service. You wouldn't want people who sell burgers during a rock band gig to pay musicians, would you? There is really no need to be jealous about someone making money ethically.
What one needs to worry about the unfortunately common fascination with people who made big money, no matter how unethically.
Today publishers are boldly standing in a way of natural distribution which is hundreds time more effective than the old media like radio or TV. Actually, by statistics, most active customers get more info on the Internet than on TV.
So I hear what you are saying, but the model the publishers are pursuing is outdated - they just don't want to give it up because when it was there they were on top.
As for TPB making some money or even large money - well, why not? They do not pay you, but they also don't censor anyone. They are not making money directly on content. They are providing a service. You wouldn't want people who sell burgers during a rock band gig to pay musicians, would you? There is really no need to be jealous about someone making money ethically.
What one needs to worry about the unfortunately common fascination with people who made big money, no matter how unethically.
so you mean that the info and comercials thats on internet just appears there by magic? thats a publishers job too. and bytheway internet pay slim to no roaylties at all (last.fm per example pay 29 dollars for 40.000 on demand radio plays (!!!!!) or thats atleast what I got last quarter. whats so outdated by lobbying that music from a certain artist you work for gets playtime on radio and used in comercials etc?
anyway, artists are already makign zero money on recordsales, im ok with that I mean its always been like that.
but you propose that we cut the royalties income too, on top of that.
then you dont mind that someone is making fat money on distributing your music. then whats different from that and Fairlight selling warez? (we all know they love doing it too) I dont see that difference.
maybe you are one of thoose who cry when it cost more than 5euros to go to a concert?
How should musicans live of their work? What do you suggest?
anyway, artists are already makign zero money on recordsales, im ok with that I mean its always been like that.
but you propose that we cut the royalties income too, on top of that.
then you dont mind that someone is making fat money on distributing your music. then whats different from that and Fairlight selling warez? (we all know they love doing it too) I dont see that difference.
maybe you are one of thoose who cry when it cost more than 5euros to go to a concert?
How should musicans live of their work? What do you suggest?
i look forward to meeting dubmood, his e-guitar and his hat on the corner of my street \o/
frankly I would do better with my e-penis than my e-guitarr on that corner
dubmood: you are saying valid stuff - no need to go to extremes, I wasn't suggesting all that revolutionary stuff. labels simply should change their business models and embrace new technology, focus on concert organization and certainly their number and huge incomes will go down from millions of dollars to normal income.
as for how musicians should live of their work - just like they lived for centuries - live gigs, writing music for money (theater, now films), selling copies of beautifully designed cds as a side thing. music should not be a business - it is art. good if it gives you good income, but you should be a really good musician. music is not the type of thing you go into money - never has been but the 20th century when for a short time you could make a living simply by selling copies of a recording - that is, of a gig done once.
as for how musicians should live of their work - just like they lived for centuries - live gigs, writing music for money (theater, now films), selling copies of beautifully designed cds as a side thing. music should not be a business - it is art. good if it gives you good income, but you should be a really good musician. music is not the type of thing you go into money - never has been but the 20th century when for a short time you could make a living simply by selling copies of a recording - that is, of a gig done once.
Quote:
music should not be a business - it is art
but! those are not mutually exclusive
Quote:
labels simply should change their business models and (...) incomes will go down from millions of dollars to normal income.
tard...
stijn: if we understand business as activity the main goal of which is money, then I am afraid they are exclusive, because sooner or later you will have to make a choice - deliver a good piece of art or just write something about sex that will sell or sue someone to squeeze out more money.
ok then I think programming should be art too, software should be free
and movies
movies is art, movies should be free!
and movies
movies is art, movies should be free!
yes! - everything should be free, and then we could just exchange goods!.... *cough*
dubmood: the problem is that louigi actually agrees with that
dubmood, don't overlook the art of beer brewing!
and girls, girls are art
and dragons!
dubmood, last.fm pays you? now what exactly did i do wrong? =)
If your songs is registred to a label on last.fm that collects royalties (note this though, your songs CANT be registred with a royaltycollecting society like SACEM/STIM etc, they ahve to be free) you get "royalties" from last.fm
but they are about 0.0005% of what real royalties would be, its a joke really. But as I have tons of old chiptunes that I didnt sign up to STIM I could accept their conditions. I get about 40k on demand plays (the kind of plays that pay, random plays and scrobbles dont) per quarter wich equals between 29 and 31 dollars. Its as sad as its true. Last.fm sux
but they are about 0.0005% of what real royalties would be, its a joke really. But as I have tons of old chiptunes that I didnt sign up to STIM I could accept their conditions. I get about 40k on demand plays (the kind of plays that pay, random plays and scrobbles dont) per quarter wich equals between 29 and 31 dollars. Its as sad as its true. Last.fm sux
gloom: maybe your friends at pixar and nvidia can help you score a better deal then?
Quote:
How should musicans live of their work? What do you suggest?
There's always the sex industry (I'm told it's lucrative). If you're going to get shafted by guys in suits, you may as well get paid for it.
I thought they did it naked :(
They don't have to be. These days pants come with a thing called a fly which enables the user to get their cock out without the inconvenience of disrobing.
Just like the real world! Only not quite as unfair....
If you are not represented in the mainstream media, then the royalties which SHOULD go to you will probably go to someone else anyway! Because the survey of which songs get played (which determine how the "royalty fund" should be divided) are far from being an accurate representation of what music is actually getting played in the real world.
In Australia ALL commercial sites which have music playing (Supermarkets, Gymnasiums, Pub's, McDonalds, Office Blocks, etc.) are legally required to have an APRA liscence. The proceeds are put into a fund to pay the royalties.
They do require liscence holders to say roughly how much music, and what kind of media (CD, Radio, etc.) is being played. But they often do not ask the liscence holders exactly which CD's and radio stations are being listened to. They just guess based upon the statistics given by the few members who are required to fill in detailed records!
In summary, your song could be played 40,000 times a day in various workplaces across AU. And theoretically you are entitled to royalties for this. But if you are not represented in the mainstream, then the cash which is rightfully yours goes to Flo-Rider (or someone else) instead!
And getting representation in the mainstream often involves signing away most of your rights to the royalties anyway, so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I agree with Courtney, the REAL pirates are the recording corporations!
Quote:
and by the way internet pay slim to no roaylties at all (last.fm per example pay 29 dollars for 40.000 on demand radio plays...
Just like the real world! Only not quite as unfair....
If you are not represented in the mainstream media, then the royalties which SHOULD go to you will probably go to someone else anyway! Because the survey of which songs get played (which determine how the "royalty fund" should be divided) are far from being an accurate representation of what music is actually getting played in the real world.
In Australia ALL commercial sites which have music playing (Supermarkets, Gymnasiums, Pub's, McDonalds, Office Blocks, etc.) are legally required to have an APRA liscence. The proceeds are put into a fund to pay the royalties.
They do require liscence holders to say roughly how much music, and what kind of media (CD, Radio, etc.) is being played. But they often do not ask the liscence holders exactly which CD's and radio stations are being listened to. They just guess based upon the statistics given by the few members who are required to fill in detailed records!
In summary, your song could be played 40,000 times a day in various workplaces across AU. And theoretically you are entitled to royalties for this. But if you are not represented in the mainstream, then the cash which is rightfully yours goes to Flo-Rider (or someone else) instead!
And getting representation in the mainstream often involves signing away most of your rights to the royalties anyway, so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I agree with Courtney, the REAL pirates are the recording corporations!
the problem with discussion of such matters is that it is very easy to get misunderstood. If from all what I wrote in the quoted topic people got the idea that I think noone should charge money for art, then I guess discussing such serious matters on a forum is not a good idea at all. Either people do not read what's written or they just don't take time to understand what's written. In the end no useful information is taken out, because in order to get new information, one has to actually spend time studying it, not just saying: "what you say is crap, fuck off".