Jef wrote: I think wasting resources on fighting that losing battle would be better spent investing in other ways to get paid for your work.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:Do you have any suggestion for an alternative method of getting paid for their work? Keeping in mind that if recorded music is no longer worth anything, then studio are worthless as well.
Jef wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:Do you have any suggestion for an alternative method of getting paid for their work? Keeping in mind that if recorded music is no longer worth anything, then studio are worthless as well.
No Matt, I have no suggestions for you. Just posting what I've observed.
It's like the Live Music Scene. At one time, we could make decent money playing bar gigs; could afford to own a high end PA & light show; had a tech crew that worked with for the band... Then a bunch of jamb-band hack players started gigging for next to nothing and totally destroyed that market too. Why would a club pay 1200 bucks for a well polished act, when they could get the hack band to play for peanuts? (....rant, rant rant).
Jef wrote:The "traditional' ways of making money with music will soon be, if not already, going the way of the dinosaur. What the industry needs is more "out-of-the-box" thinking on alternative ways of generating revenue. Those who are innovative enough will prosper while those who cling to the old ways will most likely not survive.
On-line file sharing and downloading free copies of music has become more the rule than the exception. I think wasting resources on fighting that losing battle would be better spent investing in other ways to get paid for your work.
As much as I understand the parallel with the devaluing of the service, the root of the problem is far from equal. People didn't stop buying popular music recordings because some "hack" bands started giving away their music. It came from the theft of popular intellectual property, delivered (for a fee) by highly profitable corporations who have done an excellent job of concealing their active involvement in the destruction of content creators' livelihood. After the fact, plummeting sales of music corresponding with availability of broadband Internet access in North American markets has been documented. This completely contradicts the old argument of "wouldn't have bought it anyway, so downloading it didn't actually change anything."Jef wrote:It's like the Live Music Scene. At one time, we could make decent money playing bar gigs; could afford to own a high end PA & light show; had a tech crew that worked with for the band... Then a bunch of jamb-band hack players started gigging for next to nothing and totally destroyed that market too. Why would a club pay 1200 bucks for a well polished act, when they could get the hack band to play for peanuts? (....rant, rant rant).
Malcolm Boyce wrote:...plummeting sales of music corresponding with availability of broadband Internet access in North American markets has been documented. This completely contradicts the old argument of "wouldn't have bought it anyway, so downloading it didn't actually change anything."
The fact that so many still parrot these arguments demonstrates how good of a job the tech industry has done of distorting the facts and influencing legislators.
Jef wrote:...but where is the contradictory data coming from? I mean studies such as this depict a totally opposite effect. Who you gonna believe?
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Why are these 'scholars' calling on the government to "look at more objective data when deciding on future copyright enforcement policies"? Why will enforcing existing copyright law bother them and their group, even if the business is in this alleged wonderful, profitable state already?
Jef wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote:...plummeting sales of music corresponding with availability of broadband Internet access in North American markets has been documented. This completely contradicts the old argument of "wouldn't have bought it anyway, so downloading it didn't actually change anything."
The fact that so many still parrot these arguments demonstrates how good of a job the tech industry has done of distorting the facts and influencing legislators.
...but where is the contradictory data coming from? I mean studies such as this depict a totally opposite effect. Who you gonna believe?
Jef wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote:Why are these 'scholars' calling on the government to "look at more objective data when deciding on future copyright enforcement policies"? Why will enforcing existing copyright law bother them and their group, even if the business is in this alleged wonderful, profitable state already?
Indeed... all very good questions. Perhaps the copyright laws themselves need to be revised to 21st century standards.
macrae11 wrote: ...but the problem is that there's a lot of people making big money from the product of artists. And it's not the artists.
Jef wrote:macrae11 wrote: ...but the problem is that there's a lot of people making big money from the product of artists. And it's not the artists.
True... major labels, concert promoters (TicketMaster) are still ripping off artists (and consumers).
A lot of artists are doing ok without them though. Promoting their own work and organizing concerts etc. by taking advantage of technology such as social media & such... for example.
This!... or at least helping in the act of stealing.macrae11 wrote:Jef wrote:macrae11 wrote: ...but the problem is that there's a lot of people making big money from the product of artists. And it's not the artists.
True... major labels, concert promoters (TicketMaster) are still ripping off artists (and consumers).
A lot of artists are doing ok without them though. Promoting their own work and organizing concerts etc. by taking advantage of technology such as social media & such... for example.
Haha right, they're the ones screwing artists. They're providing a service which the artist pays for, which may be too much that's certainly up for discussion. The one's I'm referring to have absolutely nothing to do with the entertainment industry except for stealing it's product.
Precisely. Not even close. Unless you are an ISP, or Google, or a manufacturer of hardware to playback your downloads, you have no reason to be against content creators having control of what happens with their works.macrae11 wrote:I don't think there are an equal amount of legitimate arguments for and against file sharing at all. I think there are far more arguments that people make for file sharing as opposed to against file sharing but the vast majority of them are self aggrandizing bullshit.
Sites like YouTube are not where the majority of pirated music downloads are coming from. It's the full service, torrent and "file sharing" providers where you can get the latest Daft Punk album in your choice of file type, all at the price of a Google search, which they claim filtering out would cause irreparable damage to the interwebs.macrae11 wrote:I've got no problem with a YouTube type scenario. As you pointed out the content owners are the one's receiving the advertising royalties. Also artists have the choice to take there content down via DMCA takedown notices. It's not great for smaller artists because the barrier to entry is a little too high IMO, and drafting DMCA notices can be a full time job, however it's better than nothing. Sites where the creators have no say, no pay, no choice are not at all in the same ballpark and this is where the majority of pirates are getting their content from.
It's not where any of the pirated music is coming from. It is sites like this that are a legitimate alternative to "stealing" material.Malcolm Boyce wrote:Sites like YouTube are not where the majority of pirated music downloads are coming from.
...yup, did a YouTube search, they got that too.Malcolm Boyce wrote:...get the latest Daft Punk album
Is everyone who's using one of those YouTube to .mp3 things not doing anything wrong? So everyone I catch giving me music converted from YouTube clips for events isn't doing anything wrong? Some dance events I work would pay more for one pair of shoes than to purchase proper copies of their music, but instead continue to use these workarounds because it's easy.Jef wrote:It's not where any of the pirated music is coming from. It is sites like this that are a legitimate alternative to "stealing" material.Malcolm Boyce wrote:Sites like YouTube are not where the majority of pirated music downloads are coming from.
The monies being paid from YouTube are paltry in comparison to the profits being generated for YouTube and the service providers selling devices, and the bandwidth to get the content to the end user. No amount of "thinking outside the box" will fix that until some changes are made. People are talking about YouTube/Google as thought they are so fragile, they can't be regulated the same way broadcast has been for decades. The fact is, it's a fabricated bit of BS to keep their profits on the rise.Jef wrote:Also, there is another way that artists are getting money from YouTube.
Anybody can upload to YouTube. If it is someone else's copyright material, there are a couple things that can happen..
- The offending material can be removed by YouTube.
- The material can be left there, but with advertisement slapped to it (that gets paid to the rights holder).
So even when somebody likes your song and does their own (usually amateur) version of it and puts it up on YouTube and gets a million more hits than the original, you can still get paid for it.
This is one of the alternative ways of getting paid, when I referred to "thinking outside the box".
That doesn't sound like a big industry making unlawful money by pirating Billions of dollars worth of revenue at all. It's more like private individuals making personal copies of music that was legitimately obtained (from YouTube via advertisers). I think you and Andrew are speaking of two separate things.Malcolm Boyce wrote: Is everyone who's using one of those YouTube to .mp3 things not doing anything wrong? So everyone I catch giving me music converted from YouTube clips for events isn't doing anything wrong? Some dance events I work would pay more for one pair of shoes than to purchase proper copies of their music, but instead continue to use these workarounds because it's easy.
"They're providing a service which the artist pays for, which may be too much that's certainly up for discussion." (quoting Andrew's answer to another scenario, but it works here too)Malcolm Boyce wrote: The monies being paid from YouTube are paltry in comparison to the profits being generated for YouTube and the service providers selling devices, and the bandwidth to get the content to the end user.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests