art is free, as it should be
Hey, knowledge is free, too, right? Why don't you come over here and fix my computer? For free, of course.
I feel like I have to explain this to every coder who happens to own a guitar: There are people who try to make a living off of their music (and I mean the actual artists, not their record companies). Making good music isn't easy to do and requires work. They should be compensated for it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Now there's a phrase I'd like to see resurrected:
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
"an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent"
why not have *no* blocking software, and only a simple request not to look at pr0n? Depending on the community, this should be deterrent enough.
Even better, a threat that the computers are monitered (make up something about how you log all the sites that are visited). I can't imagine any deterrent that would work better than the combination of shame and the "certainty" of getting caught.
I can't quote you what a recording session at a studio costs, but I would hazard a guess you can get reasonable work done for less than 100 kilobucks - maybe 25? That's not a justification for record prices as I see them.
It's not cheap, but a competent musician can make a decent album for a decent amount of cash. My local studio (I'd give a shout out, but he has no web address and an unlisted number, so why bother) charges $20 an hour to record. That's it. And, he's a freaking cool guy.
The costs climb since you have to buy the reel ($70) and the hours increase with each time you rerecord a part and the time you spend mixing. But it's not unreasonable, and it's perfectly possible to make a vanity CD of three of four songs.
I was cruising the RIAA website recently and found "Why are CD costs so high?" thinly disguised as "What costs go into a CD?" The RIAA comes right out and says "it's promotion and distribution." It's that same promotion and distribution that fills the airwaves with crap bands.
Bands can make a living without huge promotional machines (in fact it might be easier, since the public won't get saturated with and consequently sick of the band). And I can find the music I like without promotional machines, thank you very much. I surf the web, get recommendations from friends, buy sampler CDs and actually leave the house(!) to go hit the bars and groove to tunes.
Instead of constantly slamming the music industry, can we get a full analysis of how things should work taking in to consideration all parties involved?
This is a pretty tall order! Here's my attempt to raise awareness:
I can't tell you how many times I've seen this conflict portrayed as tech-friendly music lovers vs. Big Evil Record Companies. The Napster debate sure seems that way, since big names like the RIAA and Metallica are involved.
What bothers me about Napster isn't that big-name acts lose money, but that small time acts can lose money, which Katz briefly alludes to. For every Metallica, there's hundreds of musicians who eke out a living from gigs, CD sales (either from their website or their car's trunk) and maybe royalties. It's like micropayment without the tech. If their music is distributed for free, then they're not going to make money.
I'm reminded of a friend who told me he DLed various soundtracks from Napster. The soundtrack business is the kind of business where the musician makes his money from royalties. We're not talking Metallica, or Britney Spears, we're talking about nameless, faceless composers. When the composer's soundtrack is passed around for free, he doesn't make any royalties. You like his work, but he gets no reward for it. In fact, you're hurting him. It's like if you put in a 40 hour work week and didn't get paid.
That's why I don't like the Napster. If these lesser known musicians were common on Napster (admittedly, most of them aren't), you really would be taking money out of their pocket. Those of you who scorn Metallica and Britney Spears probably have lesser known favorite bands. Think about this: if your favorite, unknown band's music is distributed for free, they're not making any money, so they have to get the dreaded day job. They don't have as much time to spend on their music, they don't have the resources to tour and promote. You'll never see them live, and the quality of their work could suffer as they try to balance making music with crap like working a day job and commuting.
I'm a musician. Not one of those "I distribute my music for free" types - I make money from what I do. People pay to hear it, and I like that. But if my tunes are distributed for free, without my consent, that's a lot of money I'm not making. I don't like that. My intellectual property is my intellectual property. Not yours to give away.
I'd rather see the industry work from an MP3.com model than a Napster model. By all means, break down the tyranny of the record company, free the channels of distribution, put me on the Net so people can find me. But don't take the liberty of distributing my hard work for free.
I live in DE, the Black Hole State, as well. What I do is write my congressmen and State reps. Writing a letter sounds ineffective, but you can bet it's a hell of a lot more effective than "voting" with your dollar." I don't know where this ridiculous concept came from, but it needs to be put to rest. A.00005% sales dip in MegaCorp's fourth quarter report doesn't express your opinions on an issue. Neither will just voting (or not voting) for a party platform once a year. You won't influence anyone's behavior until you tell them WHY you refuse to give them your business or your vote.
If you want someone, anyone, to pay attention to your opinions, you have to express them to the decision makers. Not just on Slashdot, not just in conversations with your buddies. Express your opinions to the people that make decisions, or to outlets where the people that make decisions on your behalf will be exposed to them.
Our political system, while not perfect, relies on activism, not apathy. If people expressed their opinions to newspapers and Congressmen with the same vehemence and persuasiveness that they do on/., things would indeed be different. But instead we're satisfied to keep it to ourselves for some reason.
If you want to actually make a difference, here's what to do:
Think about your argument.
Write an outline.
Flesh our your outline with prepositions, adjectives, etc. Turn it into a letter.
Print it out. Put it down.
The next day, look at it, make revisions.
Mail it to anyone who has anything to do with the issue that has you so worked up.
Until you do that, you have no right to complain. Because all you're complaining about is that the government can't read your mind.
So, this guy has an inheritable syndrome that causes heart trouble, and feels that its wrong to pass on these genes. I take it he also felt that it was wrong that his parents should have conceived him, since he would have had a much more thorough life if he had never existed.
Great, so now I'm accountable for what genes my kids inherit? Super. I can't wait until my son gets to high school and sues me for passing on my pizzaface genes. The little ingrate!
I tell myself that this is one judge's bad judgement (three words you don't like to see together), and that it won't set a precedent, but it is indeed unfortunate. Furthermore, it reveals a disturbing trend: A business is more important than an individual. Making money is more important whatever "pointless" activity you're doing.
Of course, there are more enlightened people out there, and I hope that they'll overturn the ruling, but it's a chilling indication that there are people out there in positions of authority who think that business take precedent (anyone remember the principal who suspended the kid who wore a Pespi t-shirt on Coke day?)
Slashdot Mirror
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Even better, a threat that the computers are monitered (make up something about how you log all the sites that are visited). I can't imagine any deterrent that would work better than the combination of shame and the "certainty" of getting caught.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I don't care if they did it because a little dancing green man in their cereal box told them to. At least they freakin' did it!
We did it!
(leading the chant): Geeks! Geeks! Geeks!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
It's not cheap, but a competent musician can make a decent album for a decent amount of cash. My local studio (I'd give a shout out, but he has no web address and an unlisted number, so why bother) charges $20 an hour to record. That's it. And, he's a freaking cool guy.
The costs climb since you have to buy the reel ($70) and the hours increase with each time you rerecord a part and the time you spend mixing. But it's not unreasonable, and it's perfectly possible to make a vanity CD of three of four songs.
I was cruising the RIAA website recently and found "Why are CD costs so high?" thinly disguised as "What costs go into a CD?" The RIAA comes right out and says "it's promotion and distribution." It's that same promotion and distribution that fills the airwaves with crap bands.
Bands can make a living without huge promotional machines (in fact it might be easier, since the public won't get saturated with and consequently sick of the band). And I can find the music I like without promotional machines, thank you very much. I surf the web, get recommendations from friends, buy sampler CDs and actually leave the house(!) to go hit the bars and groove to tunes.
So screw you, Record Industry! Ha ha!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This is a pretty tall order! Here's my attempt to raise awareness:
I can't tell you how many times I've seen this conflict portrayed as tech-friendly music lovers vs. Big Evil Record Companies. The Napster debate sure seems that way, since big names like the RIAA and Metallica are involved.
What bothers me about Napster isn't that big-name acts lose money, but that small time acts can lose money, which Katz briefly alludes to. For every Metallica, there's hundreds of musicians who eke out a living from gigs, CD sales (either from their website or their car's trunk) and maybe royalties. It's like micropayment without the tech. If their music is distributed for free, then they're not going to make money.
I'm reminded of a friend who told me he DLed various soundtracks from Napster. The soundtrack business is the kind of business where the musician makes his money from royalties. We're not talking Metallica, or Britney Spears, we're talking about nameless, faceless composers. When the composer's soundtrack is passed around for free, he doesn't make any royalties. You like his work, but he gets no reward for it. In fact, you're hurting him. It's like if you put in a 40 hour work week and didn't get paid.
That's why I don't like the Napster. If these lesser known musicians were common on Napster (admittedly, most of them aren't), you really would be taking money out of their pocket. Those of you who scorn Metallica and Britney Spears probably have lesser known favorite bands. Think about this: if your favorite, unknown band's music is distributed for free, they're not making any money, so they have to get the dreaded day job. They don't have as much time to spend on their music, they don't have the resources to tour and promote. You'll never see them live, and the quality of their work could suffer as they try to balance making music with crap like working a day job and commuting.
I'm a musician. Not one of those "I distribute my music for free" types - I make money from what I do. People pay to hear it, and I like that. But if my tunes are distributed for free, without my consent, that's a lot of money I'm not making. I don't like that. My intellectual property is my intellectual property. Not yours to give away.
I'd rather see the industry work from an MP3.com model than a Napster model. By all means, break down the tyranny of the record company, free the channels of distribution, put me on the Net so people can find me. But don't take the liberty of distributing my hard work for free.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
If you want someone, anyone, to pay attention to your opinions, you have to express them to the decision makers. Not just on Slashdot, not just in conversations with your buddies. Express your opinions to the people that make decisions, or to outlets where the people that make decisions on your behalf will be exposed to them.
Our political system, while not perfect, relies on activism, not apathy. If people expressed their opinions to newspapers and Congressmen with the same vehemence and persuasiveness that they do on /., things would indeed be different. But instead we're satisfied to keep it to ourselves for some reason.
If you want to actually make a difference, here's what to do:
- Think about your argument.
- Write an outline.
- Flesh our your outline with prepositions, adjectives, etc. Turn it into a letter.
- Print it out. Put it down.
- The next day, look at it, make revisions.
- Mail it to anyone who has anything to do with the issue that has you so worked up.
Until you do that, you have no right to complain. Because all you're complaining about is that the government can't read your mind._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Great, so now I'm accountable for what genes my kids inherit? Super. I can't wait until my son gets to high school and sues me for passing on my pizzaface genes. The little ingrate!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I tell myself that this is one judge's bad judgement (three words you don't like to see together), and that it won't set a precedent, but it is indeed unfortunate. Furthermore, it reveals a disturbing trend: A business is more important than an individual. Making money is more important whatever "pointless" activity you're doing.
Of course, there are more enlightened people out there, and I hope that they'll overturn the ruling, but it's a chilling indication that there are people out there in positions of authority who think that business take precedent (anyone remember the principal who suspended the kid who wore a Pespi t-shirt on Coke day?)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _