Why are artists so special that they can do work once and get paid for it forever?
They're not and they're not doing work once and being paid forever. They're doing work for thousand, hundreds of thousands or millions of customers and getting paid by all of them incrementally instead of all at once. Wouldn't you rather pay $5 for a CD and get it now rather than put your $5 into a fund that once it gets to $1M goes to the artist to create the work of art to then be disseminated?
[A]rtists are not making much money at all from their recordings: record labels are.
Yep. I hate record companies and think they're parasitic middle-men. Doesn't mean that you have to completely change the way industry works instead of just reducing the amount they leech off of the creators.
But this is ignoring the fact that the DJ is in fact not a consumer of your music, but more along the lines of a marketer of your music; the more the DJ plays your song at clubs/parties, the more 15 year olds will buy your CD. Ultimately that's what you want, since the population of 15 year olds is much larger than the population of DJs.
I think the product at a club or wedding, when it comes to music, is the entertainment at the actual event. People don't go to clubs to find new music; they go to clubs that play good music. The DJ is using the music as bait to line their pockets with cover charges and drinks markup not doing the artist a favor. Radio and internet streaming are very different in that people do use them to find new music. In this case they are doing the artist a favor (so long as they don't entirely supplant other income streams) but they also make a profit off that music from advertising, so maybe they should pay something and maybe they shouldn't. I'm not an accountant and don't know all the inputs there.
If the only way for an artist to make money is through CD sales, yes...
I don't think CDs have to be the only income form for it to make sense to charge for CDs and replays through DJs. There will be a complex curve where cost of your recorded music affects spread of that music and spread of that music affect attendance at gigs. It's unlikely that $50 a CD is the maximum profit potential and it's entirely possible (and I would say probable) that $0 a CD is the maximum profit potential. The industry seems to think that $1 a song is pretty close to maximization. Now, of course, if you only wanted to maximize spread of your music and not profit of your music something close to $0 a CD (probably name-your-own-price I think) would be the best you could get, but unless you're independently wealthy it's not feasible to/only/ focus on market share.
So, to sum up my argument: If the user of the recorded music is making money off the music because the music itself is a draw, they should pay because they're not really providing anything else to the artist. If the user of the recorded music is an advertising channel for the music, they should pay less, possibly nothing. If the user of the recorded music is using it for personal entertainment, they should pay less, possibly nothing. How much you make from playing live gigs will probably depend on your market share which will probably depend on the cost to play your music. The record labels are parasites.
I think there's a healthy middle ground here and we're currently too far into the "recorded music needs to be very expensive no matter what because labels need to make their cut territory" but I don't think the correct response is to shove the lever all the way into the "recorded music should be free no matter what" territory at full speed.
I didn't say anything about artists doing gigs, did I? I'm purely talking about CDs and playing those CDs here. I'm not a lover of the industry and I don't think that our current IP laws are the right ones, but I do see value in allowing different pricing structures.
If your accounting calculus says that you'd make more money by giving away MP3s and charging for gigs there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Some bands, NIN if I recall correctly, actually made that bet with a pay-what-you-want system for one of their albums. However, I don't think it's wrong to want to sell performances (license the usage of a CD) rather than the medium on which a performance was fixed (selling a CD without further restriction). I don't think it's technologically feasible to enforce or always economically the best move, but I will defend the right to do it.
If the business's business is to rent out their chairs to others they probably aren't buying the same chairs that you do in your own home. Or if they're using the chair more it'll likely wear out faster than yours and require replacement more often. It's also non-trivial for you to make two copies of one chair. If it's a fine chair then most of the cost is in the actual production rather than the design. Even if it's a mass-produced chair then material costs probably dwarf design costs. This is not true of IP. CDs cost pennies, if that, to press. MP3s even less.
So what do you do, as an artist, when you think that the 15-year-old with a $20 weekly allowance should only have to pay you $5 for your CD whereas a DJ who makes his living playing the same CD at weddings should pay you $100.
If you always charge just $5 for your CD then it can be purchased by 15-year-olds, but then other people that make money off of just playing your CD in public are getting a huge discount when you did all the hard work. But if you always charge $100 now the 15-year-olds, who you want to be able to afford to experience your music, can't afford to?
That's why we have different licensing agreements for different forms of usage for intellectual property, particularly that which is hard to create and easy to duplicate.
Yes, there are plenty of problems with IP and IP law but the solution is not necessarily to just throw it all away.
Probably to ensure support for limited resolution tablets. It would probably make more sense to require a 1024x768 layout and allow any other layout in addition but that imposes more costs, particularly support costs, on Microsoft.
Thank you for confirming my suspicion. Obviously I have more interest in using rather than record breaking so I'd have liked to also see what it can do on all four cores under liquid cooling.
Can someone explain why it's reporting one core, two threads?
Is this: 1. Set to one core to get a better heat profile? 2. Only using one core for the test? 3. Using all cores for the test but only reporting one core's results?
Because if it's 1 or 2 I think I see some problems with this benchmark.
Industry: We should support code signing to ensure a trusted compute path. Microsoft: I agree. Let's use this scheme that makes it impossible for drivers to be signed with multiple keys simultaneously. And if you want to work on Windows (the most popular OS out there) you need to use Microsoft keys, so we have to sign it. And this all has to be turned on by default. The Rest: Wait, wouldn't that make it really hard for anyone else to get a large amount of buy-in resulting in installation of a non-Microsoft OS very difficult? Microsoft: *Trollface*
I may have poorly read the article, but what I inferred was that hardware is signed and can only be signed once. I assume that all the hardware vendors will go through the MS signing process and won't bother making user-signable skus for those who don't want to accept the MS key.
I particularly like how the UEFI signing format only allows one key to sign it and that signature being (apparently) on the hardware. Yeah, this isn't a clear way of entrenching a monopolistic interest at all. I mean, I understand why someone would want secured, signed hardware all the way up the stack (assuming, of course that no one breaks the scheme), but it's entirely obvious how this makes it harder for the little man to get ahead in the game.
A system in which everyone is in charge usually has some method of ensuring that everyone has power within the system. In a democracy it would be voting. In socialism it would collectivization of ownership.
True anarchism would have no protections and thus relies upon ad-hoc pressures to protect the weak, if it's expected at all that the weak would be protected. (Whether the weak are protected is pretty much the difference between an optimist talking about anarchism and a pessimist talking about anarchism.)
You must be aggrieved before filing suit usually, no? Good luck proving that the "no class action suit" clause hurts you and hurts a class of people to boot. (Note, proving. Yes, it's obvious to me, but there have been stupid rulings in similar issues.)
I didn't say the contracts with Netflix were reasonable, just that the reported reason Netflix doesn't support Linux is that their contracts either require the MS DRM or DRM in general and that the studios are unhappy with what options Netflix have provided. Of course, this would all be solved if MS just put out a general C# DRM library instead of some weird Windows-only one. I guess I've just never been desperate enough to try to reverse engineer it.
Except, of course, the whole contract problem you are willfully ignoring...
And obviously I meant a general-purpose Linux OS rather than Android or BoxeeBox since every Netflix subscriber who has wanted a Linux product has seen all the "it works on Android/BoxeeBox so it should work on Linux" posts around the net.
Netflix isn't getting paid off by MS for this. There are two interesting aspects to the Netflix-on-Linux problem, one obvious, one not.
Obvious problem: Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix is on the board of directors of Microsoft. This, almost definitely, gives him sips of kool-aid and some self-interest in growing Microsoft's market share for its pet projects.
Non-obvious problem: The studios that actually own all the distribution rights to the videos on Netflix are, for the most part, wary about DRM on Linux, under the belief that obscurity grants security. Now, we all know that's stupid, but we also all know they are stupid.
From what I understand, the actual minds at Netflix wanted a Linux product, know how to make it happen (to the point where they have internally tested it and it works) and would release it if it were feasible but the studios are hogtying them with contracts.
Dude, you're seriously worried about 10 km/h? What is that, 2 mph difference? Silly metric-trolls can't use units that correspond to real-life values in a silly effort to "standardize". And if you don't understand what real-life value a mile per hour corresponds to you deserve to be confused like the metric-troll you are.
I feel that his posting was fairly dry and explanatory. He wasn't being a right jackass about it, he didn't call her names, he just reported on what was happening. I haven't had the time to look through all the Twitter-verse about it but from what I gather she started tagging him in derogatory comments on Twitter which prompted his blog post. (I could be wrong about that. Like I said, I only did a cursory glance at the Twitter angle of this story.)
You are depriving him of his commercial rights. Yes, these rights are imaginary, in that they're a social convention to enrich him despite the physical cost of copying is low, but they're there for a reason. They give him incentive to produce and compensate him for the time and effort he puts into crafting and utilizing his skill.
For example, if you have a blog that you don't pay for beyond your time and effort and write a scathing article critiquing Litware for their horrible human rights practices in Elbonia you have no problem with others reading your blog for personal use or personal edification. However, if the Times Picayune Daily copies your article without payment or attribution and puts it on their front page you, technically, have not been deprived of anything, right? But then that article causes hundreds of thousands of people to start purchasing the Times Picayune Daily daily. They continue to rip off your blog and make a hefty profit from your articles. Yet they've not deprived you of anything. Except that now when you want to sell, for example, a hardcover book version of your blog the Times Picayune Daily puts out their "Greatest Hits" book at the same time, undercutting your price. You still haven't lost a thing of value, right?
Or, put another way, turning a lump of steel into a car only costs time and effort, so why should the auto worker be compensated beyond the cost of the steel that went into it, right? Producing that picture took time, effort and skill, so why shouldn't Jay Lee be compensated beyond the material cost of transferring the bits from one place to another?
(I'm trying to keep this as grounded a theory as possible while minimally invoking imaginary property rights. If you wish to continue this line I would suggest we first work out how his time, effort and skill should be compensated since I doubt you will argue that he spent none of that on his photograph and, if you're copying it instead of doing it yourself, you find value in the fact that he did it first.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'll respond in reverse order:
Why are artists so special that they can do work once and get paid for it forever?
They're not and they're not doing work once and being paid forever. They're doing work for thousand, hundreds of thousands or millions of customers and getting paid by all of them incrementally instead of all at once. Wouldn't you rather pay $5 for a CD and get it now rather than put your $5 into a fund that once it gets to $1M goes to the artist to create the work of art to then be disseminated?
[A]rtists are not making much money at all from their recordings: record labels are.
Yep. I hate record companies and think they're parasitic middle-men. Doesn't mean that you have to completely change the way industry works instead of just reducing the amount they leech off of the creators.
But this is ignoring the fact that the DJ is in fact not a consumer of your music, but more along the lines of a marketer of your music; the more the DJ plays your song at clubs/parties, the more 15 year olds will buy your CD. Ultimately that's what you want, since the population of 15 year olds is much larger than the population of DJs.
I think the product at a club or wedding, when it comes to music, is the entertainment at the actual event. People don't go to clubs to find new music; they go to clubs that play good music. The DJ is using the music as bait to line their pockets with cover charges and drinks markup not doing the artist a favor. Radio and internet streaming are very different in that people do use them to find new music. In this case they are doing the artist a favor (so long as they don't entirely supplant other income streams) but they also make a profit off that music from advertising, so maybe they should pay something and maybe they shouldn't. I'm not an accountant and don't know all the inputs there.
If the only way for an artist to make money is through CD sales, yes...
I don't think CDs have to be the only income form for it to make sense to charge for CDs and replays through DJs. There will be a complex curve where cost of your recorded music affects spread of that music and spread of that music affect attendance at gigs. It's unlikely that $50 a CD is the maximum profit potential and it's entirely possible (and I would say probable) that $0 a CD is the maximum profit potential. The industry seems to think that $1 a song is pretty close to maximization. Now, of course, if you only wanted to maximize spread of your music and not profit of your music something close to $0 a CD (probably name-your-own-price I think) would be the best you could get, but unless you're independently wealthy it's not feasible to /only/ focus on market share.
So, to sum up my argument:
If the user of the recorded music is making money off the music because the music itself is a draw, they should pay because they're not really providing anything else to the artist.
If the user of the recorded music is an advertising channel for the music, they should pay less, possibly nothing.
If the user of the recorded music is using it for personal entertainment, they should pay less, possibly nothing.
How much you make from playing live gigs will probably depend on your market share which will probably depend on the cost to play your music.
The record labels are parasites.
I think there's a healthy middle ground here and we're currently too far into the "recorded music needs to be very expensive no matter what because labels need to make their cut territory" but I don't think the correct response is to shove the lever all the way into the "recorded music should be free no matter what" territory at full speed.
I didn't say anything about artists doing gigs, did I? I'm purely talking about CDs and playing those CDs here. I'm not a lover of the industry and I don't think that our current IP laws are the right ones, but I do see value in allowing different pricing structures.
If your accounting calculus says that you'd make more money by giving away MP3s and charging for gigs there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Some bands, NIN if I recall correctly, actually made that bet with a pay-what-you-want system for one of their albums. However, I don't think it's wrong to want to sell performances (license the usage of a CD) rather than the medium on which a performance was fixed (selling a CD without further restriction). I don't think it's technologically feasible to enforce or always economically the best move, but I will defend the right to do it.
If the business's business is to rent out their chairs to others they probably aren't buying the same chairs that you do in your own home. Or if they're using the chair more it'll likely wear out faster than yours and require replacement more often. It's also non-trivial for you to make two copies of one chair. If it's a fine chair then most of the cost is in the actual production rather than the design. Even if it's a mass-produced chair then material costs probably dwarf design costs. This is not true of IP. CDs cost pennies, if that, to press. MP3s even less.
So what do you do, as an artist, when you think that the 15-year-old with a $20 weekly allowance should only have to pay you $5 for your CD whereas a DJ who makes his living playing the same CD at weddings should pay you $100.
If you always charge just $5 for your CD then it can be purchased by 15-year-olds, but then other people that make money off of just playing your CD in public are getting a huge discount when you did all the hard work. But if you always charge $100 now the 15-year-olds, who you want to be able to afford to experience your music, can't afford to?
That's why we have different licensing agreements for different forms of usage for intellectual property, particularly that which is hard to create and easy to duplicate.
Yes, there are plenty of problems with IP and IP law but the solution is not necessarily to just throw it all away.
So that I can remove the Microsoft key from my machine and still use the driver for a non-Microsoft OS.
Probably to ensure support for limited resolution tablets. It would probably make more sense to require a 1024x768 layout and allow any other layout in addition but that imposes more costs, particularly support costs, on Microsoft.
Thank you for confirming my suspicion. Obviously I have more interest in using rather than record breaking so I'd have liked to also see what it can do on all four cores under liquid cooling.
Can someone explain why it's reporting one core, two threads?
Is this:
1. Set to one core to get a better heat profile?
2. Only using one core for the test?
3. Using all cores for the test but only reporting one core's results?
Because if it's 1 or 2 I think I see some problems with this benchmark.
Uhm, this is exactly monopoly abuse.
Industry: We should support code signing to ensure a trusted compute path.
Microsoft: I agree. Let's use this scheme that makes it impossible for drivers to be signed with multiple keys simultaneously. And if you want to work on Windows (the most popular OS out there) you need to use Microsoft keys, so we have to sign it. And this all has to be turned on by default.
The Rest: Wait, wouldn't that make it really hard for anyone else to get a large amount of buy-in resulting in installation of a non-Microsoft OS very difficult?
Microsoft: *Trollface*
By hardware, I mean add-in hardware, not the motherboards. Stupid no edit button...
I may have poorly read the article, but what I inferred was that hardware is signed and can only be signed once. I assume that all the hardware vendors will go through the MS signing process and won't bother making user-signable skus for those who don't want to accept the MS key.
I particularly like how the UEFI signing format only allows one key to sign it and that signature being (apparently) on the hardware. Yeah, this isn't a clear way of entrenching a monopolistic interest at all. I mean, I understand why someone would want secured, signed hardware all the way up the stack (assuming, of course that no one breaks the scheme), but it's entirely obvious how this makes it harder for the little man to get ahead in the game.
A system in which everyone is in charge usually has some method of ensuring that everyone has power within the system. In a democracy it would be voting. In socialism it would collectivization of ownership.
True anarchism would have no protections and thus relies upon ad-hoc pressures to protect the weak, if it's expected at all that the weak would be protected. (Whether the weak are protected is pretty much the difference between an optimist talking about anarchism and a pessimist talking about anarchism.)
Jesus H. Christ, do you have to be so belligerent?
You must be aggrieved before filing suit usually, no? Good luck proving that the "no class action suit" clause hurts you and hurts a class of people to boot. (Note, proving. Yes, it's obvious to me, but there have been stupid rulings in similar issues.)
Not to mention that though class action suits don't much help individuals they can hurt the corporation if it loses.
And let's also give them extra time to get there between holding down two jobs and taking care of their kids.
I didn't say the contracts with Netflix were reasonable, just that the reported reason Netflix doesn't support Linux is that their contracts either require the MS DRM or DRM in general and that the studios are unhappy with what options Netflix have provided. Of course, this would all be solved if MS just put out a general C# DRM library instead of some weird Windows-only one. I guess I've just never been desperate enough to try to reverse engineer it.
Except, of course, the whole contract problem you are willfully ignoring...
And obviously I meant a general-purpose Linux OS rather than Android or BoxeeBox since every Netflix subscriber who has wanted a Linux product has seen all the "it works on Android/BoxeeBox so it should work on Linux" posts around the net.
Netflix isn't getting paid off by MS for this. There are two interesting aspects to the Netflix-on-Linux problem, one obvious, one not.
Obvious problem: Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix is on the board of directors of Microsoft. This, almost definitely, gives him sips of kool-aid and some self-interest in growing Microsoft's market share for its pet projects.
Non-obvious problem: The studios that actually own all the distribution rights to the videos on Netflix are, for the most part, wary about DRM on Linux, under the belief that obscurity grants security. Now, we all know that's stupid, but we also all know they are stupid.
From what I understand, the actual minds at Netflix wanted a Linux product, know how to make it happen (to the point where they have internally tested it and it works) and would release it if it were feasible but the studios are hogtying them with contracts.
Dude, you're seriously worried about 10 km/h? What is that, 2 mph difference? Silly metric-trolls can't use units that correspond to real-life values in a silly effort to "standardize". And if you don't understand what real-life value a mile per hour corresponds to you deserve to be confused like the metric-troll you are.
So. Much. Win.
I feel that his posting was fairly dry and explanatory. He wasn't being a right jackass about it, he didn't call her names, he just reported on what was happening. I haven't had the time to look through all the Twitter-verse about it but from what I gather she started tagging him in derogatory comments on Twitter which prompted his blog post. (I could be wrong about that. Like I said, I only did a cursory glance at the Twitter angle of this story.)
You are depriving him of his commercial rights. Yes, these rights are imaginary, in that they're a social convention to enrich him despite the physical cost of copying is low, but they're there for a reason. They give him incentive to produce and compensate him for the time and effort he puts into crafting and utilizing his skill.
For example, if you have a blog that you don't pay for beyond your time and effort and write a scathing article critiquing Litware for their horrible human rights practices in Elbonia you have no problem with others reading your blog for personal use or personal edification. However, if the Times Picayune Daily copies your article without payment or attribution and puts it on their front page you, technically, have not been deprived of anything, right? But then that article causes hundreds of thousands of people to start purchasing the Times Picayune Daily daily. They continue to rip off your blog and make a hefty profit from your articles. Yet they've not deprived you of anything. Except that now when you want to sell, for example, a hardcover book version of your blog the Times Picayune Daily puts out their "Greatest Hits" book at the same time, undercutting your price. You still haven't lost a thing of value, right?
Or, put another way, turning a lump of steel into a car only costs time and effort, so why should the auto worker be compensated beyond the cost of the steel that went into it, right? Producing that picture took time, effort and skill, so why shouldn't Jay Lee be compensated beyond the material cost of transferring the bits from one place to another?
(I'm trying to keep this as grounded a theory as possible while minimally invoking imaginary property rights. If you wish to continue this line I would suggest we first work out how his time, effort and skill should be compensated since I doubt you will argue that he spent none of that on his photograph and, if you're copying it instead of doing it yourself, you find value in the fact that he did it first.)
I meant that telling GoDaddy to get her back up and running was the good guy move.