And add, the only thing that MS can achieve by this (if you want to call it an achievement) is to drive all future IT innovation out of the US. If they try really hard, and get the US government's help, they can possibly drive it out of the developed world.
I should have said, technology has driven the cost of copying musical recordings to almost zero
Removal of copyright - or less forceful use of it, let's put it that way - must be voluntary, will reduce unit prices but, will end up promoting a lot more bands. The only potential loser in this scenario is the record industry itself - the middlemen.
Artists don't need to give their recordings away. If the guy playing in the subway can make a decent living off of donations and $5 CD sales, there's a ton of bands out there that could profit in much the same way.
It is quite possible that I am mistaken. It has happened once or twice in the past:)
I thought your two quotes were related, because although they were to two different people in two different posts, the second was in defense of the first.
The discussion at this point, as I understand it is that there is money to be made selling recorded music, despite what Courtney Love said about it.
I believe that Courtney's essay on the subject of record industry chicanery is probably accurate - she's not the only artist with the same view.
I take the Techdirt view of the value of recorded music:
Basically, technology has rendered musical recordings worthless as a product in and of themselves. Yes, people will continue to buy them. Some people will actually continue to buy them at their current, historically inflated prices. But the number that do so is dropping year after year.
This doesn't change the other issue, most bands have always made more money from touring and ancillary sales (t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc) than from recording sales. If they don't have a recording contract with a distribution deal, or their contract allows them to do so, they can make a bit of cash off CD sales at concerts.
And here now, I see the crux of my disagreement, I believe. I mistook this quote!
When it is so patently obvious that owning music is worth quite a bit to hundreds of millions of people, the old argument that recorded music "should" just be used to draw people to concerts seems more than a little self-serving.
Yes. You are certainly correct! The only point I was trying to make about this is that the price of that ownership will drop dramatically.
The fact that 2006 US music sales included 588.2 million albums and 581.9 million digital tracks indicates that there is perhaps a bit of money in the field of selling albums and music, and not just performing.
...
They would if they would sell their own music, or found distributors that gave them favorable terms. (And don't try the crap about there being no such thing -- there is; you just don't get the marketing muscle that the big names have.) I feel no sympathy for the poor, downtrodden artists who sign away the rights to their music in hopes of becoming multimillionaires. They played the lottery, they lost.
This is some incredibly forced logic. In the first para you are quoting (I assume) industry stats on sales (which do not benefit artists in any substantial way) with the industry's predilection for DRM which serves only to alienate fans?
Yes, finally, with the advent of the internet and cheap technology, artists can market themselves. The issue at hand, however is how the industry that supposedly has the artist's interests in hand has turned a "legal" consumer away from products handled by same said industry.
I guess I just don't understand. Are you defending the industry's use of DRM, or are you condemning artists for singing with major labels?
So you tell me how a performer can compete with technology without any kind of legal protections. If someone can record my performance and play it in their nightclub every night of the week, why the hell would they pay me to do it live?
Please excuse me, but you are so not getting this.
A recording of a performance is not the performance
The "social capital" of seeing someone live is enormous. I.e., "I went to Woodstock" vs. "I saw the Woodstock DVD".
So, someone is playing a recording of your performance in a nightclub, but, down the street, you are performing live - guess whose club is charging more? Yes, the first club is duping you. But, guess what? They are actually promoting you.
"Oh yeah, dude took me to a club where they were playing recordings of C0rinthian's tunes. But I would love to have gone to see COrinthian".
There is a guy who "performs" in the NY subway, selling his CDs for $5. He makes a living. (I would love to give you the link but I can't remember where I read it)
Through technology, recorded music has been brought back to earth. Before, it was based on scarcity - the recording companies pressed the albums, duplicated the 8-tracks/cassettes, burned the CDs. Now that that scarcity is removed, the recorded performance has found its logical place - as a promotion for the artist.
You love your artist, you'll buy their CDs, tshirts, ashtrays, mousepads. But the thing that might have introduced you to them was hearing music on a throwaway recording.
Their musical ability and artistry are what is real. Their recordings are simply a chimera, a faint approximation of their talent.
Unfortunately, the recording industry has built a billion-dollar empire on this chimera. And they are loathe to give it up. Hence, they've duped people into believing that artists actually get anything from recording-industry produced recordings.
It MAKES Me FEEL very important to Talk in ALTERNATING Caps, even if they DON'T maKE SeNsE to reaD. Sometimes I ALSO like to randomly italiCIZE Words As Well.
Gee. What if this poster is sitting in a wheelchair, working his way through a rather lame voice-to-text conversion program? Or typing with a pencil in her teeth?
I initially thought that the errors/formatting in the post indicated a lazy, less-than-competent poster. But then, I realized - after having read THOUSANDS of slashdot posts - that the errors did not follow any particular pattern.
Trust me, look at my sig., I do notice people who spell definite, definate and could have, could of. But if you look at this post, I think you'll agree that this person is having difficulty with the technology at hand.
I'm making a value judgment here, I know, but that post is so goddamn insightful that I'm willing to overlook all of its errors.
Seeing as how MS seems to favor a $100 price-point for its OS, the laptop would have to cost $0.
If that actually happens, and then if, by some remote chance, refunds for the Microsoft Tax were suddenly made mandatory (by a state's law, say, Massachussetts). Wowee-Zowee. Free laptops for everyone, courtesy Mr. Gates!
Slashdot Mirror
"The wow factor is when people hear it. We're going where other people can't put loudspeakers."
I'm already so happy with all the people with loudspeakers in their cars.
Now I'll get to be entertained by folks wearing loudspeakers on their jackets.
Yippee.
Sounds like the movies to me!!
It'll sound like the movies to me when I can use it from my flying car.
I think you're right simply because of this.
Microsoft came within inches of tying up the internet with Active-X, and now, how many "important" sites require Active-X to work properly?
They were too late to the game for the internet and they are too late to the game to save Vista by destroying FOSS.Whew!
I have to completely agree with you.
And add, the only thing that MS can achieve by this (if you want to call it an achievement) is to drive all future IT innovation out of the US. If they try really hard, and get the US government's help, they can possibly drive it out of the developed world.
What? No Digital Doofus?
Cmdr Taco == Editor
Is that anything like Open Sores?
The Constitution? What's that?
As seen on Slashdot:
"The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now"
Until they develop a mental-telepathy interface for cellphones, I'm just fine with this.
This just keeps getting better.
I might be falling in love with the EU. If they could do something about the RIAA I'd be in nirvana.
Feh.
Well, how about a few thousand slashdot visitors? Will that help?
MjM
You're right, and I pretty much agree with you.
I should have said, technology has driven the cost of copying musical recordings to almost zero
Removal of copyright - or less forceful use of it, let's put it that way - must be voluntary, will reduce unit prices but, will end up promoting a lot more bands. The only potential loser in this scenario is the record industry itself - the middlemen.
Artists don't need to give their recordings away. If the guy playing in the subway can make a decent living off of donations and $5 CD sales, there's a ton of bands out there that could profit in much the same way.
It is quite possible that I am mistaken. It has happened once or twice in the past :)
l l l
I thought your two quotes were related, because although they were to two different people in two different posts, the second was in defense of the first.
The discussion at this point, as I understand it is that there is money to be made selling recorded music, despite what Courtney Love said about it.
I believe that Courtney's essay on the subject of record industry chicanery is probably accurate - she's not the only artist with the same view.
I take the Techdirt view of the value of recorded music:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtm
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070222/002451.shtm
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061218/203728.shtm
etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Basically, technology has rendered musical recordings worthless as a product in and of themselves. Yes, people will continue to buy them. Some people will actually continue to buy them at their current, historically inflated prices. But the number that do so is dropping year after year.
This doesn't change the other issue, most bands have always made more money from touring and ancillary sales (t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc) than from recording sales. If they don't have a recording contract with a distribution deal, or their contract allows them to do so, they can make a bit of cash off CD sales at concerts.
And here now, I see the crux of my disagreement, I believe. I mistook this quote!
When it is so patently obvious that owning music is worth quite a bit to hundreds of millions of people, the old argument that recorded music "should" just be used to draw people to concerts seems more than a little self-serving.
Yes. You are certainly correct! The only point I was trying to make about this is that the price of that ownership will drop dramatically.
They would if they would sell their own music, or found distributors that gave them favorable terms. (And don't try the crap about there being no such thing -- there is; you just don't get the marketing muscle that the big names have.) I feel no sympathy for the poor, downtrodden artists who sign away the rights to their music in hopes of becoming multimillionaires. They played the lottery, they lost.
This is some incredibly forced logic. In the first para you are quoting (I assume) industry stats on sales (which do not benefit artists in any substantial way) with the industry's predilection for DRM which serves only to alienate fans?
Yes, finally, with the advent of the internet and cheap technology, artists can market themselves. The issue at hand, however is how the industry that supposedly has the artist's interests in hand has turned a "legal" consumer away from products handled by same said industry.
I guess I just don't understand. Are you defending the industry's use of DRM, or are you condemning artists for singing with major labels?
So you tell me how a performer can compete with technology without any kind of legal protections. If someone can record my performance and play it in their nightclub every night of the week, why the hell would they pay me to do it live?
Please excuse me, but you are so not getting this.
A recording of a performance is not the performance
The "social capital" of seeing someone live is enormous. I.e., "I went to Woodstock" vs. "I saw the Woodstock DVD".
So, someone is playing a recording of your performance in a nightclub, but, down the street, you are performing live - guess whose club is charging more? Yes, the first club is duping you. But, guess what? They are actually promoting you.
"Oh yeah, dude took me to a club where they were playing recordings of C0rinthian's tunes. But I would love to have gone to see COrinthian".
There is a guy who "performs" in the NY subway, selling his CDs for $5. He makes a living. (I would love to give you the link but I can't remember where I read it)
Through technology, recorded music has been brought back to earth. Before, it was based on scarcity - the recording companies pressed the albums, duplicated the 8-tracks/cassettes, burned the CDs. Now that that scarcity is removed, the recorded performance has found its logical place - as a promotion for the artist.
You love your artist, you'll buy their CDs, tshirts, ashtrays, mousepads. But the thing that might have introduced you to them was hearing music on a throwaway recording.
Their musical ability and artistry are what is real. Their recordings are simply a chimera, a faint approximation of their talent.
Unfortunately, the recording industry has built a billion-dollar empire on this chimera. And they are loathe to give it up. Hence, they've duped people into believing that artists actually get anything from recording-industry produced recordings.
Gee. What if this poster is sitting in a wheelchair, working his way through a rather lame voice-to-text conversion program? Or typing with a pencil in her teeth?
I initially thought that the errors/formatting in the post indicated a lazy, less-than-competent poster. But then, I realized - after having read THOUSANDS of slashdot posts - that the errors did not follow any particular pattern.
Trust me, look at my sig., I do notice people who spell definite, definate and could have, could of. But if you look at this post, I think you'll agree that this person is having difficulty with the technology at hand.
I'm making a value judgment here, I know, but that post is so goddamn insightful that I'm willing to overlook all of its errors.
Oh, if only I had mod points for that!
Sheesh!
Good on you
That is probably the most awesome summation of the reality facing the music industry that I have ever read.
Bam!
http://lavidavegas.blogspot.com/2007/02/ipirate.ht ml
Fuck Microsoft.
You've got a long ways to go before you are a true Microsoft fan boy. There are reeducation camps in remote areas of Washington state for that.
http://pchdtv.com/hd_5500.html
Shouldn't be too difficult to hook a UHF cable up to one of these
"Sales of Vista are really horrible"
What Makes Software Development So Hard?
It's all that goddamned thinking you have to do.
MjM
Seeing as how MS seems to favor a $100 price-point for its OS, the laptop would have to cost $0.
If that actually happens, and then if, by some remote chance, refunds for the Microsoft Tax were suddenly made mandatory (by a state's law, say, Massachussetts). Wowee-Zowee. Free laptops for everyone, courtesy Mr. Gates!
(I'm not holding my breath)
MjM