11–20 of 71 posts
Can you really equate piracy to radio when you can listen to what you want on-demand? This is a big difference from radio and services like Pandora which don't allow you to listen to exactly what you want when you want.
We have come to accept a vast panoply of behaviors of sharing creative works and of allowing people to "consume" music, art, movies, etc. without directly compensating the creators. Radio, television, libraries, used books, etc. We accept such things largely because we've grown used to them. We have lived long enough in an era of libraries and radio to understand that they do not destroy the ability of artists to mak…
Hollywood's model is broken because it has been dependent on scarcity of distribution. This couldn't be sustainable forever. Internet fixed the distribution so Hollywood is bleeding. Art is getting easier to access and to create thanks to technology. (this is where we, startups, come in)
IMHO, art will become a commodity. In a few decades, you won't pay so much to watch a movie that cost a few millions to produce. You'll pay almost nothing for a movie that cost almost nothing to produce. And it will have much higher quality than today's movies. Thanks to technology. Like you said, art will survive.
[1] http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O...
That's worth thinking about.
Can you really equate piracy to radio when you can listen to what you want on-demand? This is a big difference from radio and services like Pandora which don't allow you to listen to exactly what you want when you want.
Are they really so different? The radio plays songs interspersed with commercials that thousands of people hear and a handful of those folks are influenced to go buy cars or soap or deodorant or fast food from the advertisements they heard (thus effectively paying the advertisers, thus compensating them for the advertisements, thus providing the radio station with revenue to pay the license fees which get paid to mus…
Problem is, the big players are hanging on to the cliff edge by their fingernails, rather than locking into the harness at the bottom ready to start their climb.
Can you really equate piracy to radio when you can listen to what you want on-demand? This is a big difference from radio and services like Pandora which don't allow you to listen to exactly what you want when you want.
So the challenge is 'listen to what you want' versus 'discover new music'. People will listen to something for 'free' even if they aren't sure they will like it, but they won't pay any money for something that they don't know whether or not they will like it. Radio was a way to introduce new music, but with an iPod/iPhone/mp3 player people can carry around days of music that they already know they like, and it has no…
> but they won't pay any money for something that they don't know whether or not they will like it.
people bought albums for decades without knowing what songs were on the album.
I don't see how it's fair to justify the acquisition of someones property with the pretense that it's gonna be better for you. Even under extreme cases like nationalisation and imminent domain, the owners are compensated. I made this comment on the Neil Young link, but it was censored. If we are so certain that the artist will benefit under the 'new' system, fine, but if he or she doesn't they have to be compensated to bridge the earnings gap.
Comparing music now to music in the 1930's is not fair, artists got paid almost nothing in the 1930-1950's. The whole industry was corrupt.
We have come to accept a vast panoply of behaviors of sharing creative works and of allowing people to "consume" music, art, movies, etc. without directly compensating the creators. Radio, television, libraries, used books, etc. We accept such things largely because we've grown used to them. We have lived long enough in an era of libraries and radio to understand that they do not destroy the ability of artists to mak…
I do not doubt that artists may be compensated in the long run. But the compensation my come through higher ticket prices. I paid $32 to see Molotov, Eminem, The Black Eyed Peas, and Suicidal Tendencies in New York City back in 1999. Those days are long gone. To see those artists now, maybe $120.
Saying "will" seems speculative since the examples are not comparable to piracy. Museums dont give free copies and have collections which are sometimes donated. In radio there is a cooperation between radio stations and the record companies.
Can you really equate piracy to radio when you can listen to what you want on-demand? This is a big difference from radio and services like Pandora which don't allow you to listen to exactly what you want when you want.
So radio is only acceptable because it's bad for the consumer? Does making radio better (by allowing on-demand listening) suddenly make it illegal/immoral/bad?
(Radio stations cost lots to set up up front, web radio costs kick in when you get bigger, but until then you'd have to operate at a loss, or go ad heavy.
We have come to accept a vast panoply of behaviors of sharing creative works and of allowing people to "consume" music, art, movies, etc. without directly compensating the creators. Radio, television, libraries, used books, etc. We accept such things largely because we've grown used to them. We have lived long enough in an era of libraries and radio to understand that they do not destroy the ability of artists to mak…
Are authors paid for books purchased at the library? The library does not provide the public with a free personal copy of any book they want. I do not doubt that artists may be compensated in the long run. But the compensation my come through higher ticket prices. I paid $32 to see Molotov, Eminem, The Black Eyed Peas, and Suicidal Tendencies in New York City back in 1999. Those days are long gone. To see those artis…
The artist will only release if a certain threshold is reached.. Then the released music is completely "free" to share as people please. The artist is compensated as they see fit - they set the price in the first place, and also can use it to justify part of the price (to compensate for recording, hosting etc.).
"Piracy" then serves to generate rep to prove that they can deliver on future releases, there can still be people who make money in the middle - generating PR for the project etc.
The platform could take a small share of the cost, a slightly larger share for hosting, slightly more for promotion on the front page..
We have come to accept a vast panoply of behaviors of sharing creative works and of allowing people to "consume" music, art, movies, etc. without directly compensating the creators. Radio, television, libraries, used books, etc. We accept such things largely because we've grown used to them. We have lived long enough in an era of libraries and radio to understand that they do not destroy the ability of artists to mak…
Are authors paid for books purchased at the library? The library does not provide the public with a free personal copy of any book they want. I do not doubt that artists may be compensated in the long run. But the compensation my come through higher ticket prices. I paid $32 to see Molotov, Eminem, The Black Eyed Peas, and Suicidal Tendencies in New York City back in 1999. Those days are long gone. To see those artis…
"Uncompensated sharing in the digital age has been unmoored from some of the traditional limits on sharing, moving it well outside the comfort zone for a lot of people and causing a lot of backlash against the phenomenon."
You say radio, museums, and libraries aren't comparable to file sharing. Do you have data to back that up or merely prejudice?
As for your anecdote above, it's rare for the price of a show for a given artist to remain the same over time. The Black Eyed Peas especially are very much more popular today than they were in 1999.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the challenge is 'listen to what you want' versus 'discover new music'. People will listen to something for 'free' even if they aren't sure they will like it, but they won't pay any money for something that they don't know whether or not they will like it. Radio was a way to introduce new music, but with an iPod/iPhone/mp3 player people can carry around days of music that they already know they like, and it has no…
The issue of compensation for the artist never seems to come up in these conversations. Neil Young can charge $75 for his cheapest concert tickets. So record sales mean very little to him. For younger artists this is not the case. > but they won't pay any money for something that they don't know whether or not they will like it. people bought albums for decades without knowing what songs were on the album. I don't se…