Slashdot Mirror

I think TicketMaster does a fine job as-is and this is much ado about nothing

Bullshit. They've been playing fast and loose with the rules for well over a decade. http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2016/05/ticketmaster-settlement-called-new-scam-on-top-of-old-one.html

What gives you the idea than indie music is getting "flattened" by the Internet? That seems counter-intuitive. Don't streaming and downloading help to level the playing field because production and distribution costs are so much lower? Wasn't it the old model of distribution via physical media that severely disadvantaged indie music and assured us an ongoing supply of popular garbage?

A few searches on Indie music market share seem to indicate that it's thriving under the streaming model. e.g.

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot...

"as popularity of streaming services continues to increase, major labels have increasingly less access to defining and funneling music discovery. The tipping of the scales has resulted in more exposure for indie artists."

Except that isn't true for over-the-air broadcast radio. The musicians and the studio don't actually get a penny from radio play, even sometimes the singer - that is considered promotional. Only the songwriter (they guy or gal that writes the lyrics, if any) gets paid. For many years the studios would be forced to pay money to get airplay, as well (payola).

Furthermore, musicians get screwed by the recording studios, as well. Usually the contract requires ownership rights of a recording to be owned by the studio and not the musician. Even worse, some studios make this a "work for hire,' meaning the rights never transfer back to the original artist (it is corporate owned with a longer copyright). EMI retroactively made their entire catalog works for hire, meaning bands like Pink Floyd are perpetually corporate owned. If you think that is the end of the screwing, nope - all production costs come out of the musician's cut - recording, promotion, packaging, etc. As a musician, you can sell 20000 albums and still owe money, especially if you got an advance. The studio can then go after your gear if you didn't pay back your advance (very easy to do if your band is a business, not so easy if it isn't).

I got out of the business precisely because it is unfair and leeching. I did try my hand at songwriting for a bit, but I got a Software Engineering degree and it was far easier to do that than try to peddle songs.

agree, wish I had mod points. https://musicbusinessresearch.... http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot... http://money.futureofmusic.org...

Why is there a problem creating a copy? Because, then you are not sharing. When two people share something, a single thing is used by both. When creating a copy, two things are used by two people, that is not sharing.

It figures you have never shared an idea. Software is much closer to an idea than a physical thing.

The person who cares is the copyright holder whose livelihood depends on the creation distribution of said copies. Or, do you suggest that those who create should not be compensated? How long do you think people would continue to create works if they had to work full time doing something else to support themselves? Perhaps, they should resort to patronage, creating works solely at the whim of and for the use of a patron and whomever the patron dictates.

Study: File Sharers spend more money on music.

And if sharing hurts content creators, then since file sharing has been rising year after year, content creators profits should be down, right?
MPAA celebrates 5th consecutive year of record profits.
Swedes confirm UK study: Artist income rising.

Has for software, creating and adapting OSS is a valid business model for thousands of companies. I'll be working on one a few weeks from now.

How much does it cost to higher a programmer?

How is that relevant? Is it or not an advantage for the buyer, which you claimed not to exist?

So, you would do away with trade secrets too. Nice to know.

How the **** did you read that? If competitors can buy a copy of the program and study the code that reads the files, they can implement it in their programs.

Who is going to pay for a modification when one can purchase something that works the way one wants?

I don't get your point. Do you mean that the existing software already covers all the the needs for all the users, forever?

And, what of the one who invents the wheel? How does the inventor of the wheel gets recompense for his time, effort, and materials used to create the wheel?

First, that wheel was already created from other wheels. In fact, huge amounts of proprietary software are made using open source languages, libraries and tools.
Second, there are other ways of making money. Do you think the companies who develop Linux, just because it can be used for free? Or do you think that Java isn't lucrative just because you don't have to pay to develop software in it?
Or to move to applications, do you think Oracle does not make money from OpenOffice?

Your car analogy fails because we are talking software and not computers. Each component of a car would is the equivalent of a piece of software. So, when a computer breaks, you take it to a repair person who finds the problem and fixes it. This can be as simple as a "tune up" by cleaning out old files, registry entries, etc. It could be by replacing a broken component such as a hard drive, faulty ram, re-installing a corrupted program or removing malware. It could be something serious such as a bad motherboard, processor, or having to reinstall the operating system. Really, try to use a valid analogy because I have no problem pointing out your failures.

Yes, if you apply my analogy to something different than I did, no wonder it fails.

Cars are like applications, which is what we were talking about, not computers. Now go re-read the analogy.

I see, so I should be able to call you an evil person because you do something I don't like and if you don't like it, you just don't have to read it and all is well, yes?

Of course, failbook is an even bigger mess Buy 5,000 facebook fans for $30, 150,000 fans for $160 (ten for a penny). And that's about what the average facebook account really is worth, if you believe that the market sets the price.

Almost:

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/06/band-shoots-free-video-with-surveillance-cameras.html

Since we're both into Creative Commons licensed mp3s, and in the event that others who may not know are following this thread, in addition to Magnatune, check out http://www.jamendo.com/ - for those interested in Creative Commons and what it mean to their music, see
http://www.jamendo.com/en/creativecommons/
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8518
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/03/jamendo-adds-licensing.html

Chasing down the links leads to this:

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/02/is-the-.html

But one seemingly knowledgeable but unconfirmed source tells Hypebot that the cuts run much deeper than previously reported.

And not much else. One can hope, but so far this is nothing but a rumor.