Hate speech could be considered harmful speech, and far more harmful than kiddie porn. I mean look at what Hitler did with his speech.
I think we should go after the producers of kiddie porn, the ones who abuse the kids, if you go after the distributors its a waste of time because you cant catch them all. GO after the ones who actually take the pictures and rape the children.
Thats not going to be easy, but when the evidence is all over freenet, people dont just recognize the kid they also recognize the rapist unless faces are completely blurred out.
Its a complicated issue, I dont really think theres any way to stop distribution of anything on the net and i think its pointless to try. What you can do however is do a better job preventing it.
This means take down the crime rings, and child slavery rings which actually make money off stuff like this. Keep this disorganised and make it impossible for them to profit. Thats the best you can do really.
With hate groups the same thing, keep from from being organized, keep them from profiting. I dont want to see people selling Nazi hates and shit like that, making money off hate.
But theres nothing we can do to stop people from hating, and theres nothing we can do to stop children from being abused. Freenet is not going to cure the world of evil, but freenet also is not the cause of the worlds evil.
Whats the difference? Both groups are evil, both groups harm children.
There's ALOT of things on the net already that I dont agree with, how is freenet any different?
All these slashdot morons seem to think they can do whatever they want without consequence. Guess what: your rights only extend as far as they don't infringe on those of another. There are some things that are just plain morally wrong, and exploitation of the defenseless is one of those things. Yes, no matter what anyone says, there are absolute truths.
I completely agree with you, this is why I dont support abortion!
However, when you create something like the internet or freenet, there is NO way to keep evil people off of it. You know this and I know this, murderers will create snuff films, hate groups will swarm freenet, terrorists, pedophiles, rapists and others will be on freenet, how do I know this? they already are on the internet.
So when you pay your ISP, think about what you are paying for.
I agree with you. Freenet isnt about good and evil, freenet is not going to change the world, if the world is evil, freenet will be evil.
Freenet is important just like the internet is important. Theres so many things on the internet that I'll never agree with, but hey I'm logged in right now.
If the only arguement against freenet is the questionable speech arguement, thats not enough to convince me to stop using it.
I pay my ISP, my ISP could be hosting hate sites and other questionable material for some evil person, what can I do about it? Nothing.
So, if the world is filled with decent people, kiddie porn will be limited to 1% of freenet, hate sites will be limited to 3%, etc etc, however if the world is filled with evil, freenet will be filled with evil shit.
Wouldnt it be better to know your neighbor is evil, than to have no clue?
It is, and it does hurt children, but so does hate sites like Al Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi sites and others.
Alot of evil people will do evil things when they have free speech. However we shouldnt give up on the concept of free speech just because theres evil people.
Yes kiddie porn harms kids, and the assholes who do that should go to jail for it, hate groups however are no better, alot of kids join these and do stupid things.
Theres alot of things which harm kids, hell you can even make the statement that the internet harms kids. However while the internet has bad elements, it has good elements, freenet could develop a filter or a way for people to censor themselves from these bad elements, but these bad elements cannot and should not be removed.
IF you dont want to see kiddie porn you should not be forced to see it, it should be deep within the network so only those who seek it will find it, same goes with nazi and hate sites, let the user protect themselves from content they dont want.
No one forces you to click the kiddie porn link, now if the kiddie porn link is on the front page, thats freenets fault, but if you go searching for all the bad on freenet, dont be surprised to find stuff like that.
You have a good point that kiddie porn harms children, hate groups harm children as well, the columbine kids were into neo nazism, should neo nazis be banned from the net ?
Questionable or harmful speech in my opinion should be closely monitored but not banned.
I dont like hate groups, how can we stop them? We can watch everything they talk about on the net. Before they had these websites it was all in secret, now we have anti-hate groups which watch and monitor hate groups.
I guess theres no solution to this problem, but I think freedom of speech is too important, I fear what would happen if we lost our freedom of speech more than I fear the harm which can be done by it.
Given the current trend, our freedom is being restricted. Freedom of speech is important if we are to have democracy.
Drug Lords, Crime rings, and other bad guys exist in the world. Hiding yourself from the real world is no way to deal with it.
Kiddie porn is bad, but I can think of a million things worse, like murderers making snuff films and putting it on freenet, or hate groups spreading their hate via freenet.
The reason I find freenet acceptable however is because freenet is the one place that we can see the truth about humanity. IF humans have absolute freedom of speech and expression they will say things which would never be said in the real world.
This is very useful if you like sociology, psychology, philosophy or any of these academic issues.
IF theres alot of bad content and criminals using freenet, its because most people are bad. when we finally cannot ignore or hide the fact that most people are bad, we then can better cope with dealing with bad people.
So you dont like kiddie porn? Join the millions of others who dont, so you dont like hate sites? Join the millions who dont. There is no real way to control freenet, perhaps a moderation system could help, but thats all I'd support.
If we dont reflect the real world, whats the point? You cant have half freedom, you either are free or you arent, you either are real or you are fake.
Freenet is an extention of thought, its expression of thought to be exact, expression of thought in itself is not a crime and its not what causes the harm, its the actions involved which cause the harm and which are the crime.
The terrorists and hate groups who go and harm other people, those people are criminals.
The kiddie porn producers who make the pictures and who rape children, those are the criminals.
The murderer making the snuff films, they are the criminals.
Freenet does nothing to prevent or encourage the acts, it just spreads the knowledge of these illegal acts around the net.
Harmless Freedoms should be legal. Terrorist attacks are harmful, but creating a terrorist website or hate group in itself is not directly responsible for harm.
Yes you can debate that it could be a cause, but if you truely believe anything which could cause harm is bad, you also have to outlaw the gun, outlaw hate groups (no more KKK, Nazi, etc), perhaps outlaw the church and many other groups.
You see? Its a slippery slope, first it starts with kiddie porn, mainly because the average person doesnt care for kiddie porn, then it spreads to hate groups like the nazis and kkk, then it spreads to groups like the communist party and socialist groups, eventually it will destroy free speech.
Free speech is an issue of absolutes, you can either have free speech or not have it, theres no in between on this issue. You want freedom or you dont.
Look, I dont want to assist a hate group, terrorist group, murderer, or child molestor, but as I see it I'm not, because anything they write on freenet we all see, its not private.
The kiddie porn pictures themselves arent what causes or commits the crime, its the guy who took the pictures. So you get no where by blaming the data, blame the guy.
I see it like this, I want freenet to happen, mainly because it allows a social experiment. All of these people who claim that humans are so good, all of these optimists and people who live in sheltered worlds, should have the ability to go on the internet and see how bad people truely are.
If we are to change the world its time we stop ignoring all the problems, I cant wait to log into freenet and see all the terrorist and hate groups, pedophile groups and murderers, just so I can see how humanity truely is. Even if these guys dont commit crimes we can learn about their thinking and understand them.
Your arguement doesnt work, the internet already helps bad people.
This isnt about pedophiles, I think hate groups and terrorists are far worse than pedophiles, should we not use freenet because a terrorist or nazi group might form and spread their hate?
IF you truely want free speech all speech must be protected, even hate speech.
As much as I cant stand neo nazis, I believe freedom of speech on the net is too important to give up just because a few evil people want to abuse it.
Just like if someone leaked info about a government or corperation its speech.
Pictures are 1s and 0s, sent over a communication device. Thats speech.
Now, the act of taking that picture is not speech and should be illegal. You however didnt take the picture, you just distribute the 1s and 0s.
1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech just like source code is speech. In a free world you cannot be picky about which freedoms you want to accept. Theres going to be questionable speech, I myself wouldnt want nazi speech on my node, but in a free world, nazis and pedophiles do have a right to speak.
Finally someone who knows a bit about the industry.
I agree with you exactly, thats what I was trying to tell these goofballs before they started talking to me like I dont know my shit.
I also notice theres absolutely no response from these goofs on your post.
The point I'm trying to make is, the industry is evolving, its not static, these people seem to think that selling CDs and getting airplay on the radio is the only way to make money, P2P has changed the game. You now make money by being popular on P2P and then touring the world via popularity, you can also draw hundreds of thousands of people to your website to listen to your music and if they like the samples they hear you might be able to convince them to subcribe.
I dont think people want to wait weeks for you to ship a CD, I dont think people will find your CD in a store so thats not even an option, yes people do sell CDs, but if you want to truely make money you should profit off your fans and popularity, and sell your CDs at your concert.
Of course, we have alot of programmers on this site who ignore anything musicians tell them, they are programmers and only respect "proofs" and numbers, as if you can actually prove a business model thats brand new. P2P only came about recently, musicians just now have the ability to have millions of fans without a record deal.
Most musicians wont have millions of fans, but if you have talent you CAN. Liam Lynch is doing very well, and hes not with one of the big record companis. Hes signed to S-Curve. His songs are popular only because of the internet. http://www.s-curverecords.com/
People want to ignore the fact that your marketing ability is just as important as your music talent.
With many "indie labels" sales of 100,000 for a single record would a break-out hit. Labels on this scale would be lucky to have one of those a year, many will not have one this year (or next year). And yet thats what you'd need to get 5,000 online subscribers, figuring about a 5% conversion rate which is being overly generous.
Yes but its all about talent. 100,000 sales means you have talent although we arent talking 100,000, I was thinking more around 20,000. I know websites which have more than 20,000 visitors.
You seem to confuse total album sales with subscribers for your pet service over and over. You would do well to realize that many fans of a band will buy the record at a live concert or store, never go to the website, and wouldnt care less about what you're trying to sell there.
Thats because anyone who would pay for an Album would pay for a subsubription, or at least the majority. Whats the difference? Money is money, consumers who like you will spend money on you, Album sale or subscription, it doesnt matter, to the consumer they base their decision on the value they get per money they spend.
Lastly, if you are going to run around saying "if you can't sell 20,000 records your music must really suck bad" or whatever it is you said, you should really re-evaluate they way you judge and appreciayte art. One of my favorite CD's of last year "A rough mix..." by steinski sold only a few thousand as i understand it but it has been critically aclaimed and is without question both thoroughly enjoyable and pushing the genre.
Unlike you I actually make music. If you are talented, theres the internet, theres P2P, theres no reason why you shouldnt have people from Africa to Japan listening to your music. Because you have over a billion internet users as a market you are telling me you cant sell 20,000 subscriptions? if you cant its because YOU SUCK.
Just because you think something is critically aclaimed does not mean its good. Sure its art, I'll give it that, but people dont want to pay money for it because it sucks, and music that sucks wont get subscriptions just like they wont sell CDs, it doesnt matter the model, if you suck you dont sell.
Also if you are going to run around saying things like album sales == suck/not suck in a way that claims that a huge amount of indie artists must suck, I'd like to request that you play us some of your own music. Get my point... shut the fuck up about it.
Most indie artists DO suck, just be honest here. The main reason indie artists who dont suck cant sell is because like you, they are too stupid to try new models, they are dumb and think people want to go to an obscure record store and buy their music before ever hearing any of their songs.
WRONG, you have to be good at marketing as well as making music, if you arent good at both you just plain suck. I dont hear any other businesses or industries acting like this, trying to get slack, if you dont market your stuff on P2P and spread it around the web, no ones going to buy it. IF you dont have a loyal base of fans, no ones going to buy your shit no matter HOW good it is, you could have the best record ever create but if no ones ever heard it, it sucks.
It sounds to me like you may have developed some OK musical taste lately and have gone to see a few unsigned bands but your head is still stuck thinking that music is mass market and that indie means only having one video on mtv2. A vast majority of the world's music is made on a relatively small scale.
I know alot about the music industry, more than you. Both my mother and father were musicians, I myself make music although I am not sure I can claim to be a musician because I havent made much money. All I can say is I know how it works from experience, so shut the hell up and go back to your programming job, thats what you do right?
In summary: Please stop posting 100 times trying to act like you know a lot about the
These guys are pulling in tons of money, and selling thousands of albums.
50 cent, the rapper, he sold almost a million albums before he got a deal with interscope, he sold his albums on his own, marketing his albums via mixed tape.
So what is your point?
Daft Punk, sold hundreds of thousands of copies before they signed with virgin.
How can we come up with numbers for a model which hasnt really been tried?
But ok, AOL has good numbers, people say the new york times website is doing well, the gaming sites which are pay sites are doing well, this site has subscribers
"But if you can't afford a webguy, how do you let people know how good you are. Hmm, that reminds me of something:"
Thats what P2P is for. Thats what concerts are for. People who go to your websites already are your fans, or they would be if you expect them to actually pay.
You see the problem? Sure, tell yourself that you can set up a fan site for peanuts, but the first time it falls over with an "Out of Cheese" error, you have lost your revenue stream. Better hope your cupboard is full of those noodles.
Its the musicians job to market their own site. Let them learn HTML. Its not our job to provide marketing.
Which end of you did that number get pulled from? I'd like to know before I touch it. Can you provide examples of several non-RIAA bands that have managed to set up fan sites that have 20,000 subscribers at $12 a year? Note "several", because "any good musician". If it's that easy, let's see the examples.
Instead of worrying about the number, focus on the model. People who want to use numbers to discredit models, are wasting time. The model works. "Which end of you did that number get pulled from? I'd like to know before I touch it. Can you provide examples of several non-RIAA bands that have managed to set up fan sites that have 20,000 subscribers at $12 a year? Note "several", because "any good musician". If it's that easy, let's see the examples."
Right, no band has ever in the history of music sold 20,000 CDs.
Because your bands suck, I know bands here who sell way more than that.
Not only that, but $60,000 is more than enough to feed, clothe, house, restring, and rehead at least 4 musicians for a year. That's $15,000 a year, per person.
No one said musicians had to be rich. No one said there had to be 4. For 2 musicians this is just fine. For 4 musicians, you can still survive, $15,000 is not poverty according to the government.
If the musician has talent they can sell more than 5000 CDs, if they cant, well then what are you complaining about? They couldnt sell 5000 CDs before, and they wont be able to sell 5000 subscriptions, because they suck.
unless you're offering the whole spectrum available in your field - few people could be bothered to join all the punk, rock, pop, metal, techno, classic and whatnot communities to get what they want.
Here you go treating them like customers when they are actually fans.
Fans dont follow logic, its illogical to go to concerts and listen to the same kinda music from the same DJ or Bands every friday and saturday night, but people do this. They do it for the scene, the culture and the community, not for the product.
Sell the community, use the product as a marketing device for that community.
Centralized payment wont work for music because people all are into different scenes.
I may like the rave/hiphop scene, you may like the hardrock/black metal scene, the solution is to have us subscribe to the specific bands we like or communities we like, so we subscribe to one? Link them up to each other, link the hiphop subscription with other hiphop sites, and let those sites convince the user to add on to their monthly subscription.
Just like your cable company does when you decide on the HBO2 package even though you have HBO1, or when you decide to get showtime even after you have cinimax.
It was just an example. If you are hiring a webguy and doing all this stuff, you better be a damn good band. I mean any decent musician can sell to 5000 people, if you cant sell to 5000 people your music sucks plain and simple, its no ones fault but your own if you dont have the talent to make 5000 fans.
I was being very conservative when I came up with the 5000 number, any good musician should be able to do 15-20,000 easy, especially if you have your stuff all over the net.
100,000 people download a few million files and suddenly Itunes is a success?
Billions of files are traded over P2P file sharing networks by hundreds of millions of people.
Itunes is about as much of a success as some of the micropayment sites are, sure a loyal fanbase of mac users will pay, they pay for anything made by Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats the same idea I had just done differently.
Your idea is centralized which I dont think will easily work because most music distriution on the net is decentralized.
Whats your idea genius? Whats your business model? You seem to be so much more knowledgeable, have some guts and speak.
Well thats not the question though.
Hate speech could be considered harmful speech, and far more harmful than kiddie porn. I mean look at what Hitler did with his speech.
I think we should go after the producers of kiddie porn, the ones who abuse the kids, if you go after the distributors its a waste of time because you cant catch them all. GO after the ones who actually take the pictures and rape the children.
Thats not going to be easy, but when the evidence is all over freenet, people dont just recognize the kid they also recognize the rapist unless faces are completely blurred out.
Its a complicated issue, I dont really think theres any way to stop distribution of anything on the net and i think its pointless to try. What you can do however is do a better job preventing it.
This means take down the crime rings, and child slavery rings which actually make money off stuff like this. Keep this disorganised and make it impossible for them to profit. Thats the best you can do really.
With hate groups the same thing, keep from from being organized, keep them from profiting. I dont want to see people selling Nazi hates and shit like that, making money off hate.
But theres nothing we can do to stop people from hating, and theres nothing we can do to stop children from being abused. Freenet is not going to cure the world of evil, but freenet also is not the cause of the worlds evil.
Just like the gun was not the cause of evil.
Whats the difference? Both groups are evil, both groups harm children.
There's ALOT of things on the net already that I dont agree with, how is freenet any different?
All these slashdot morons seem to think they can do whatever they want without consequence. Guess what: your rights only extend as far as they don't infringe on those of another. There are some things that are just plain morally wrong, and exploitation of the defenseless is one of those things. Yes, no matter what anyone says, there are absolute truths.
I completely agree with you, this is why I dont support abortion!
However, when you create something like the internet or freenet, there is NO way to keep evil people off of it. You know this and I know this, murderers will create snuff films, hate groups will swarm freenet, terrorists, pedophiles, rapists and others will be on freenet, how do I know this? they already are on the internet.
So when you pay your ISP, think about what you are paying for.
I agree with you. Freenet isnt about good and evil, freenet is not going to change the world, if the world is evil, freenet will be evil.
Freenet is important just like the internet is important. Theres so many things on the internet that I'll never agree with, but hey I'm logged in right now.
If the only arguement against freenet is the questionable speech arguement, thats not enough to convince me to stop using it.
I pay my ISP, my ISP could be hosting hate sites and other questionable material for some evil person, what can I do about it? Nothing.
So, if the world is filled with decent people, kiddie porn will be limited to 1% of freenet, hate sites will be limited to 3%, etc etc, however if the world is filled with evil, freenet will be filled with evil shit.
Wouldnt it be better to know your neighbor is evil, than to have no clue?
It is, and it does hurt children, but so does hate sites like Al Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi sites and others.
Alot of evil people will do evil things when they have free speech. However we shouldnt give up on the concept of free speech just because theres evil people.
Yes kiddie porn harms kids, and the assholes who do that should go to jail for it, hate groups however are no better, alot of kids join these and do stupid things.
Theres alot of things which harm kids, hell you can even make the statement that the internet harms kids. However while the internet has bad elements, it has good elements, freenet could develop a filter or a way for people to censor themselves from these bad elements, but these bad elements cannot and should not be removed.
IF you dont want to see kiddie porn you should not be forced to see it, it should be deep within the network so only those who seek it will find it, same goes with nazi and hate sites, let the user protect themselves from content they dont want.
No one forces you to click the kiddie porn link, now if the kiddie porn link is on the front page, thats freenets fault, but if you go searching for all the bad on freenet, dont be surprised to find stuff like that.
You have a good point that kiddie porn harms children, hate groups harm children as well, the columbine kids were into neo nazism, should neo nazis be banned from the net ?
Questionable or harmful speech in my opinion should be closely monitored but not banned.
I dont like hate groups, how can we stop them? We can watch everything they talk about on the net. Before they had these websites it was all in secret, now we have anti-hate groups which watch and monitor hate groups.
I guess theres no solution to this problem, but I think freedom of speech is too important, I fear what would happen if we lost our freedom of speech more than I fear the harm which can be done by it.
Given the current trend, our freedom is being restricted. Freedom of speech is important if we are to have democracy.
Drug Lords, Crime rings, and other bad guys exist in the world. Hiding yourself from the real world is no way to deal with it.
Kiddie porn is bad, but I can think of a million things worse, like murderers making snuff films and putting it on freenet, or hate groups spreading their hate via freenet.
The reason I find freenet acceptable however is because freenet is the one place that we can see the truth about humanity. IF humans have absolute freedom of speech and expression they will say things which would never be said in the real world.
This is very useful if you like sociology, psychology, philosophy or any of these academic issues.
IF theres alot of bad content and criminals using freenet, its because most people are bad. when we finally cannot ignore or hide the fact that most people are bad, we then can better cope with dealing with bad people.
So you dont like kiddie porn? Join the millions of others who dont, so you dont like hate sites? Join the millions who dont. There is no real way to control freenet, perhaps a moderation system could help, but thats all I'd support.
If we dont reflect the real world, whats the point? You cant have half freedom, you either are free or you arent, you either are real or you are fake.
Freenet is an extention of thought, its expression of thought to be exact, expression of thought in itself is not a crime and its not what causes the harm, its the actions involved which cause the harm and which are the crime.
The terrorists and hate groups who go and harm other people, those people are criminals.
The kiddie porn producers who make the pictures and who rape children, those are the criminals.
The murderer making the snuff films, they are the criminals.
Freenet does nothing to prevent or encourage the acts, it just spreads the knowledge of these illegal acts around the net.
Harmless Freedoms should be legal. Terrorist attacks are harmful, but creating a terrorist website or hate group in itself is not directly responsible for harm.
Yes you can debate that it could be a cause, but if you truely believe anything which could cause harm is bad, you also have to outlaw the gun, outlaw hate groups (no more KKK, Nazi, etc), perhaps outlaw the church and many other groups.
You see? Its a slippery slope, first it starts with kiddie porn, mainly because the average person doesnt care for kiddie porn, then it spreads to hate groups like the nazis and kkk, then it spreads to groups like the communist party and socialist groups, eventually it will destroy free speech.
Free speech is an issue of absolutes, you can either have free speech or not have it, theres no in between on this issue. You want freedom or you dont.
Look, I dont want to assist a hate group, terrorist group, murderer, or child molestor, but as I see it I'm not, because anything they write on freenet we all see, its not private.
The kiddie porn pictures themselves arent what causes or commits the crime, its the guy who took the pictures. So you get no where by blaming the data, blame the guy.
I see it like this, I want freenet to happen, mainly because it allows a social experiment. All of these people who claim that humans are so good, all of these optimists and people who live in sheltered worlds, should have the ability to go on the internet and see how bad people truely are.
If we are to change the world its time we stop ignoring all the problems, I cant wait to log into freenet and see all the terrorist and hate groups, pedophile groups and murderers, just so I can see how humanity truely is. Even if these guys dont commit crimes we can learn about their thinking and understand them.
Your arguement doesnt work, the internet already helps bad people.
This isnt about pedophiles, I think hate groups and terrorists are far worse than pedophiles, should we not use freenet because a terrorist or nazi group might form and spread their hate?
IF you truely want free speech all speech must be protected, even hate speech.
As much as I cant stand neo nazis, I believe freedom of speech on the net is too important to give up just because a few evil people want to abuse it.
Just like if someone leaked info about a government or corperation its speech.
Pictures are 1s and 0s, sent over a communication device. Thats speech.
Now, the act of taking that picture is not speech and should be illegal. You however didnt take the picture, you just distribute the 1s and 0s.
1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech just like source code is speech. In a free world you cannot be picky about which freedoms you want to accept. Theres going to be questionable speech, I myself wouldnt want nazi speech on my node, but in a free world, nazis and pedophiles do have a right to speak.
http://www.s-curverecords.com/
8 DP V/ref%3Dlm%5Flb%5F19/202-4129176-4023008
Liam Lynch
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00007
Finally someone who knows a bit about the industry.
I agree with you exactly, thats what I was trying to tell these goofballs before they started talking to me like I dont know my shit.
I also notice theres absolutely no response from these goofs on your post.
The point I'm trying to make is, the industry is evolving, its not static, these people seem to think that selling CDs and getting airplay on the radio is the only way to make money, P2P has changed the game. You now make money by being popular on P2P and then touring the world via popularity, you can also draw hundreds of thousands of people to your website to listen to your music and if they like the samples they hear you might be able to convince them to subcribe.
I dont think people want to wait weeks for you to ship a CD, I dont think people will find your CD in a store so thats not even an option, yes people do sell CDs, but if you want to truely make money you should profit off your fans and popularity, and sell your CDs at your concert.
Of course, we have alot of programmers on this site who ignore anything musicians tell them, they are programmers and only respect "proofs" and numbers, as if you can actually prove a business model thats brand new. P2P only came about recently, musicians just now have the ability to have millions of fans without a record deal.
Most musicians wont have millions of fans, but if you have talent you CAN.
Liam Lynch is doing very well, and hes not with one of the big record companis. Hes signed to S-Curve. His songs are popular only because of the internet. http://www.s-curverecords.com/
People want to ignore the fact that your marketing ability is just as important as your music talent.
With many "indie labels" sales of 100,000 for a single record would a break-out hit. Labels on this scale would be lucky to have one of those a year, many will not have one this year (or next year). And yet thats what you'd need to get 5,000 online subscribers, figuring about a 5% conversion rate which is being overly generous.
Yes but its all about talent. 100,000 sales means you have talent although we arent talking 100,000, I was thinking more around 20,000. I know websites which have more than 20,000 visitors.
You seem to confuse total album sales with subscribers for your pet service over and over. You would do well to realize that many fans of a band will buy the record at a live concert or store, never go to the website, and wouldnt care less about what you're trying to sell there.
Thats because anyone who would pay for an Album would pay for a subsubription, or at least the majority. Whats the difference? Money is money, consumers who like you will spend money on you, Album sale or subscription, it doesnt matter, to the consumer they base their decision on the value they get per money they spend.
Lastly, if you are going to run around saying "if you can't sell 20,000 records your music must really suck bad" or whatever it is you said, you should really re-evaluate they way you judge and appreciayte art. One of my favorite CD's of last year "A rough mix..." by steinski sold only a few thousand as i understand it but it has been critically aclaimed and is without question both thoroughly enjoyable and pushing the genre.
Unlike you I actually make music. If you are talented, theres the internet, theres P2P, theres no reason why you shouldnt have people from Africa to Japan listening to your music. Because you have over a billion internet users as a market you are telling me you cant sell 20,000 subscriptions? if you cant its because YOU SUCK.
Just because you think something is critically aclaimed does not mean its good. Sure its art, I'll give it that, but people dont want to pay money for it because it sucks, and music that sucks wont get subscriptions just like they wont sell CDs, it doesnt matter the model, if you suck you dont sell.
Also if you are going to run around saying things like album sales == suck/not suck in a way that claims that a huge amount of indie artists must suck, I'd like to request that you play us some of your own music. Get my point... shut the fuck up about it.
Most indie artists DO suck, just be honest here.
The main reason indie artists who dont suck cant sell is because like you, they are too stupid to try new models, they are dumb and think people want to go to an obscure record store and buy their music before ever hearing any of their songs.
WRONG, you have to be good at marketing as well as making music, if you arent good at both you just plain suck. I dont hear any other businesses or industries acting like this, trying to get slack, if you dont market your stuff on P2P and spread it around the web, no ones going to buy it. IF you dont have a loyal base of fans, no ones going to buy your shit no matter HOW good it is, you could have the best record ever create but if no ones ever heard it, it sucks.
It sounds to me like you may have developed some OK musical taste lately and have gone to see a few unsigned bands but your head is still stuck thinking that music is mass market and that indie means only having one video on mtv2. A vast majority of the world's music is made on a relatively small scale.
I know alot about the music industry, more than you. Both my mother and father were musicians, I myself make music although I am not sure I can claim to be a musician because I havent made much money. All I can say is I know how it works from experience, so shut the hell up and go back to your programming job, thats what you do right?
In summary: Please stop posting 100 times trying to act like you know a lot about the
excuse the bad html, I havent slept in a couple days.
I'll respond to the critics after I get some sleep.
http://www.7l-esoteric.com/
These guys are pulling in tons of money, and selling thousands of albums.
50 cent, the rapper, he sold almost a million albums before he got a deal with interscope, he sold his albums on his own, marketing his albums via mixed tape.
So what is your point?
Daft Punk, sold hundreds of thousands of copies before they signed with virgin.
How can we come up with numbers for a model which hasnt really been tried?
But ok, AOL has good numbers, people say the new york times website is doing well, the gaming sites which are pay sites are doing well, this site has subscribers
"But if you can't afford a webguy, how do you let people know how good you are. Hmm, that reminds me of something:"
Thats what P2P is for. Thats what concerts are for. People who go to your websites already are your fans, or they would be if you expect them to actually pay.
You see the problem? Sure, tell yourself that you can set up a fan site for peanuts, but the first time it falls over with an "Out of Cheese" error, you have lost your revenue stream. Better hope your cupboard is full of those noodles.
Its the musicians job to market their own site. Let them learn HTML. Its not our job to provide marketing.
Which end of you did that number get pulled from? I'd like to know before I touch it. Can you provide examples of several non-RIAA bands that have managed to set up fan sites that have 20,000 subscribers at $12 a year? Note "several", because "any good musician". If it's that easy, let's see the examples.
Instead of worrying about the number, focus on the model. People who want to use numbers to discredit models, are wasting time. The model works.
"Which end of you did that number get pulled from? I'd like to know before I touch it. Can you provide examples of several non-RIAA bands that have managed to set up fan sites that have 20,000 subscribers at $12 a year? Note "several", because "any good musician". If it's that easy, let's see the examples."
Right, no band has ever in the history of music sold 20,000 CDs.
Because your bands suck, I know bands here who sell way more than that.
Not only that, but $60,000 is more than enough to feed, clothe, house, restring, and rehead at least 4 musicians for a year. That's $15,000 a year, per person.
No one said musicians had to be rich. No one said there had to be 4. For 2 musicians this is just fine. For 4 musicians, you can still survive, $15,000 is not poverty according to the government.
If the musician has talent they can sell more than 5000 CDs, if they cant, well then what are you complaining about? They couldnt sell 5000 CDs before, and they wont be able to sell 5000 subscriptions, because they suck.
Plenty of bands make that kinda money selling CDs.
Instead of selling CDs, I'm saying sell the community.
Whats so complicated about this?
For one person it is. If you are a BIG group, well then you figure out how many subscriptions you need to sell.
I used 5000 because I know even a crappy band can sell 5000.
Someone like Eminem could sell a million, so whats your point? Also this is yearly payments. This is like buying a CD every year.
A CD does not cost $120 a year. Maybe $120 a year for ALL your music subscriptions combined, but not for just one.
The price should be the exact cost of a CD, maybe less, but definately not x10 more, or else no one will even consider paying for it.
CDs already are a nuisance charge, whats the difference? These would be the NEW cds.
unless you're offering the whole spectrum available in your field - few people could be bothered to join all the punk, rock, pop, metal, techno, classic and whatnot communities to get what they want.
Here you go treating them like customers when they are actually fans.
Fans dont follow logic, its illogical to go to concerts and listen to the same kinda music from the same DJ or Bands every friday and saturday night, but people do this. They do it for the scene, the culture and the community, not for the product.
Sell the community, use the product as a marketing device for that community.
Centralized payment wont work for music because people all are into different scenes.
I may like the rave/hiphop scene, you may like the hardrock/black metal scene, the solution is to have us subscribe to the specific bands we like or communities we like, so we subscribe to one? Link them up to each other, link the hiphop subscription with other hiphop sites, and let those sites convince the user to add on to their monthly subscription.
Just like your cable company does when you decide on the HBO2 package even though you have HBO1, or when you decide to get showtime even after you have cinimax.
It was just an example. If you are hiring a webguy and doing all this stuff, you better be a damn good band. I mean any decent musician can sell to 5000 people, if you cant sell to 5000 people your music sucks plain and simple, its no ones fault but your own if you dont have the talent to make 5000 fans.
I was being very conservative when I came up with the 5000 number, any good musician should be able to do 15-20,000 easy, especially if you have your stuff all over the net.
100,000 people download a few million files and suddenly Itunes is a success?
Billions of files are traded over P2P file sharing networks by hundreds of millions of people.
Itunes is about as much of a success as some of the micropayment sites are, sure a loyal fanbase of mac users will pay, they pay for anything made by Apple.
Its MAC USERS!
You should really finish that idea up and write a paper on it.
Its genius, as long as the RIAA isnt involved, I like your idea better than any other.