I also think the artists have a legitimate beef, because practically none of this money will make it back to them. Since there's no accounting for individual songs required, there's no way to decided how much of the money should go to which artist. To record labels, that means the artists get none of it.
I think you are starting to buy into all the RIAA rhetoric. C'mon the promotional value alone from these streams is great for all artists, unsigned and signed. Do you know how much it would cost an upcoming artist for the type of 'free' exposure and disrtribution they get from streaming radio?
It gives artist who would not necessarily fit into the current label 'sound' investment(meaning what they think people should hear, and who they've hooked up with Pepsi), a chance to be exposed to a wider audience. It gives artist who have been around for a long time exposure to a new and younger audience who can appreciate them all over again.
People listen to these streams to find new artists to support. You hear a great band, it touches a cord inside, you shuttle off to buy the disc, read the liner notes, and impress all your friends. This is a pattern being repeated by millions of music lovers all over the world.
The belief that we are sitting there ripping off every artist is the bullshit the RIAA wants you to believe, so that they can maintain a stranglehold on our media access, a very valuable commodity in this day and age.
Hey! I'd just like to thank all the guys/gals on this site that keep naysaying flash, and pull uneducated opinions about its capabilities out their asses.
Cheers! Everytime I read some dumb-assed opion about how the web should be HTML forever, I know that's one less person I have to worry about competing with for a job. Have fun writing your useful web based applications in HTML.
Some could say the reverse. That free promotion and distribution across the net benefits upcoming artists. In fact this article from Wired makes a case.
First off, I haven't heard anything too impressive from this CD yet. One song that is alright, but I want to hear a hell of a lot more before I buy it. And I haven't downloaded any mp3s off the net.
Secondly, CD sales will continue to drop, as long as we have p2p file sharing networks and CD burners. But is this a bad thing? How many of us blew cash on a CD for one or two songs, just becasue CD's are priced at $24 or whatever they are in your part of the world, doesn't mean that is what they should always be. CD prices are overblown at the moment, face it, we've been getting ripped off. Finally we have the ability to easily test the waters first, make informed decisions and then spend that hard earned cash supporting an artist we are really impressed with and who deserves it. I support the art/music I like, otherwise bye, bye art/music I like. That won't change. But I'm sick of paying too much for a half-assed, so-so CD because I have to. When CD prices drop to what they should be, sales will go up again, If I can buy a new CD for under $10 dollars I'll be more likely to just take a leap of faith(as I do sometimes in used CD's), but not now. Revenue may not go up to what it was, but revenue for record labels have been way too high for too long anyway.
what I'm saying, maybe not clearly, is that businesses should figure out how to tap into the new system to make money, not force us to conform to archaic models. If they offer easy access to a wide variety music on-line at a reasonable price(as this seems to be an attempt at), then they can make money. Especially if they can provide guarantees about things, such as availability of artists, access speeds, and other levels of service. Or maybe, they'll start offering cd's at reasonable prices in order to compete with on-line sales. Personally I like buying cd's. For the shiny newness, for the smell of the new liner cover, the liner notes, the extra multimedia stuff. Even just the physicality of holding it, and putting it on a shelf for people to see.
If they continue to try and bend the system in their favour, prevent emerging technologies, and fair usage rights they will continue to be left behind.
I just don't agree that because they have been making a lot of money ripping us off, they should continue to be able to make that much money or more for enternity.
The problem I have with the 'this is stealing!' arguments is the fact that we are still paying for access to our music. How much did you pay for your computer, and internet connection? Last time I checked it wasn't free. Not to mention the time a person takes to track down those killer, rare tracks, finding new bands, etc.
Just because a system changes so that a formerly overpaid provider of music (record labels), no longer makes gobs of an unbelievable amount of money, doesn't make it stealing. Industries and technologies change. It is up to business to keep up, not for them to tell us to slow down because they aren't making money anymore. Music will not die because of this. It will always be around. Just how we access it will change, how artist make money from it will change.
Sir, isn't it true that in the past new technologies and innovations have driven new industry and business, eg. moving to electric lights from oil lamps? And was this only possible with no interference, or at least no government funded interference, from industries that made money off the previous models(i.e lamp oil makers)?
If we want to continue to move forward with technology and improve on existing technologies shouldn't it be the industries(RIAA, Hollywood) that have to adapt, sink or swim and not the technology? Or for that matter, should it not be the consumer that drives the market, by choosing those emerging technologies they prefer?
How can we advance, if invested interests constantly interfere or control that advancement?
Might be a bit long, but maybe you can grab some ideas from this? Let's hear how it goes. G'luck
QUESTIONS: Where do you track your artists down? Do you have a personal relationship with any of them? And if so so you have any first hand data available describing a benefit for this artist as a result of their exposure through your internet radio broadcast.
PERSONAL COMMENT: I personally have been listening to Groove Salad (Soma FM) for about two years, and I love it. It exposed me to lots of artists I would never have accessed through the current controlled media. And try to track their cds down and buy them.(there's a tiny success story) I'm sure that is a common pattern, that if stopped will only hurt artists. And those of us who listen to them!
This stuff is getting pretty heavy, but it seems the technology to break this type of cryptography is already in early stages of research. Check out this New Scientist article.
Just wondering if anyone out there knows of lobbying attempts by any technology companies to actually propose legislation to protect an open and fair market? Seems like everyday I hear a new proposal for something to tighten the screw but nothing to loosen it up.
It would seem that even some of the big wheels would be starting to raise their eyebrows, and beginning to glance nervously over at their R&D dept, with some of the new legislations being passed they could very well be violating laws.
Has anyone, such as the EFF, or GeekPAC approached some of these companies for funding or backing on their own legislation pushes?
I'm not saying this isn't being done, I just don't hear about it.
It's nice when someone who knows what they are talking about makes a comment that not only truly encapsulates what some of us 'herd' believe, but also states it in a manner that is not condescending and presumptious(ala Jon Katz).
Let's not get uppity of the 'phraseology' used, and focus on the spirit behind 'globalism', or whatever you want to call it, instead.
Flash is a very capable and useful tool in the right hands. An object oriented approach can produce amazing, fast, re-usable components for building useful sites quickly. And once the flash app is loaded initially there need be no reloading of pages, reloading of cgi prgrams etc. It can be a continous free-flowing application(very enjoyable by a user) that can quickly retrieve data from a back-end through a variety of methods, including xml or socket connections. Don't compare early flash done by graphic designer to flash done well by coders with strong OO backgrounds. Early HTML design and development was by no means perfect at the beginning. If flash was truly useless or pointless eye-candy it would have died long ago with the blink tag. But innovative people continue to do amazing things that are impossible or clumsy with HTML/CGI devlopment.
We're talking about a transition from click-reload-click-reload to an authentic GUI interface for on-line applications.
Yes, the 'developer' interface isn't obvious right away, but a few tweaks here and there and you can easily notch out a well organized coding interface.
The next version is working on some problems brought up here, but some people are so ignorant of flash's capabilities it astounds me they have the confidence to even make a statement on the matter.
Has anyone ever tried typing 'Microsoft sucks' or just microsoft(without dollar sign), as the displayed messenger name. It wont work! microsoft actually added some code to prevent it. Maybe they have a valid reason, maybe they don't. Can't wait to see what they do with this.
"we have detected the words 'microsoft' and 'sucks' together in one sentence, this call has been disconnected."
Slashdot Mirror
flamebait? thats pretty harsh.
I also think the artists have a legitimate beef, because practically none of this money will make it back to them. Since there's no accounting for individual songs required, there's no way to decided how much of the money should go to which artist. To record labels, that means the artists get none of it.
I think you are starting to buy into all the RIAA rhetoric. C'mon the promotional value alone from these streams is great for all artists, unsigned and signed. Do you know how much it would cost an upcoming artist for the type of 'free' exposure and disrtribution they get from streaming radio?
It gives artist who would not necessarily fit into the current label 'sound' investment(meaning what they think people should hear, and who they've hooked up with Pepsi), a chance to be exposed to a wider audience. It gives artist who have been around for a long time exposure to a new and younger audience who can appreciate them all over again.
People listen to these streams to find new artists to support. You hear a great band, it touches a cord inside, you shuttle off to buy the disc, read the liner notes, and impress all your friends. This is a pattern being repeated by millions of music lovers all over the world.
The belief that we are sitting there ripping off every artist is the bullshit the RIAA wants you to believe, so that they can maintain a stranglehold on our media access, a very valuable commodity in this day and age.
Cheers,
Hey! I'd just like to thank all the guys/gals on this site that keep naysaying flash, and pull uneducated opinions about its capabilities out their asses.
Cheers! Everytime I read some dumb-assed opion about how the web should be HTML forever, I know that's one less person I have to worry about competing with for a job. Have fun writing your useful web based applications in HTML.
Some could say the reverse. That free promotion and distribution across the net benefits upcoming artists. In fact this article from Wired makes a case.
First off, I haven't heard anything too impressive from this CD yet. One song that is alright, but I want to hear a hell of a lot more before I buy it. And I haven't downloaded any mp3s off the net.
Secondly, CD sales will continue to drop, as long as we have p2p file sharing networks and CD burners. But is this a bad thing? How many of us blew cash on a CD for one or two songs, just becasue CD's are priced at $24 or whatever they are in your part of the world, doesn't mean that is what they should always be. CD prices are overblown at the moment, face it, we've been getting ripped off. Finally we have the ability to easily test the waters first, make informed decisions and then spend that hard earned cash supporting an artist we are really impressed with and who deserves it. I support the art/music I like, otherwise bye, bye art/music I like. That won't change. But I'm sick of paying too much for a half-assed, so-so CD because I have to. When CD prices drop to what they should be, sales will go up again, If I can buy a new CD for under $10 dollars I'll be more likely to just take a leap of faith(as I do sometimes in used CD's), but not now. Revenue may not go up to what it was, but revenue for record labels have been way too high for too long anyway.
ummm... no.
what I'm saying, maybe not clearly, is that businesses should figure out how to tap into the new system to make money, not force us to conform to archaic models. If they offer easy access to a wide variety music on-line at a reasonable price(as this seems to be an attempt at), then they can make money. Especially if they can provide guarantees about things, such as availability of artists, access speeds, and other levels of service. Or maybe, they'll start offering cd's at reasonable prices in order to compete with on-line sales. Personally I like buying cd's. For the shiny newness, for the smell of the new liner cover, the liner notes, the extra multimedia stuff. Even just the physicality of holding it, and putting it on a shelf for people to see.
If they continue to try and bend the system in their favour, prevent emerging technologies, and fair usage rights they will continue to be left behind.
I just don't agree that because they have been making a lot of money ripping us off, they should continue to be able to make that much money or more for enternity.
The problem I have with the 'this is stealing!' arguments is the fact that we are still paying for access to our music. How much did you pay for your computer, and internet connection? Last time I checked it wasn't free. Not to mention the time a person takes to track down those killer, rare tracks, finding new bands, etc.
Just because a system changes so that a formerly overpaid provider of music (record labels), no longer makes gobs of an unbelievable amount of money, doesn't make it stealing. Industries and technologies change. It is up to business to keep up, not for them to tell us to slow down because they aren't making money anymore. Music will not die because of this. It will always be around. Just how we access it will change, how artist make money from it will change.
Sir, isn't it true that in the past new technologies and innovations have driven new industry and business, eg. moving to electric lights from oil lamps? And was this only possible with no interference, or at least no government funded interference, from industries that made money off the previous models(i.e lamp oil makers)?
If we want to continue to move forward with technology and improve on existing technologies shouldn't it be the industries(RIAA, Hollywood) that have to adapt, sink or swim and not the technology? Or for that matter, should it not be the consumer that drives the market, by choosing those emerging technologies they prefer?
How can we advance, if invested interests constantly interfere or control that advancement?
Might be a bit long, but maybe you can grab some ideas from this? Let's hear how it goes. G'luck
QUESTIONS:
Where do you track your artists down? Do you have a personal relationship with any of them? And if so so you have any first hand data available describing a benefit for this artist as a result of their exposure through your internet radio broadcast.
PERSONAL COMMENT:
I personally have been listening to Groove Salad (Soma FM) for about two years, and I love it. It exposed me to lots of artists I would never have accessed through the current controlled media. And try to track their cds down and buy them.(there's a tiny success story) I'm sure that is a common pattern, that if stopped will only hurt artists. And those of us who listen to them!
This stuff is getting pretty heavy, but it seems the technology to break this type of cryptography is already in early stages of research. Check out this New Scientist article.
Just wondering if anyone out there knows of lobbying attempts by any technology companies to actually propose legislation to protect an open and fair market? Seems like everyday I hear a new proposal for something to tighten the screw but nothing to loosen it up.
It would seem that even some of the big wheels would be starting to raise their eyebrows, and beginning to glance nervously over at their R&D dept, with some of the new legislations being passed they could very well be violating laws.
Has anyone, such as the EFF, or GeekPAC approached some of these companies for funding or backing on their own legislation pushes?
I'm not saying this isn't being done, I just don't hear about it.
Just another 'hear!, hear!'.
It's nice when someone who knows what they are talking about makes a comment that not only truly encapsulates what some of us 'herd' believe, but also states it in a manner that is not condescending and presumptious(ala Jon Katz).
Let's not get uppity of the 'phraseology' used, and focus on the spirit behind 'globalism', or whatever you want to call it, instead.
I think you have a good point here. A lot of the negative comments by people, seem to be by those too lazy or scared to move on and learn new things.
Flash is a very capable and useful tool in the right hands. An object oriented approach can produce amazing, fast, re-usable components for building useful sites quickly. And once the flash app is loaded initially there need be no reloading of pages, reloading of cgi prgrams etc. It can be a continous free-flowing application(very enjoyable by a user) that can quickly retrieve data from a back-end through a variety of methods, including xml or socket connections. Don't compare early flash done by graphic designer to flash done well by coders with strong OO backgrounds. Early HTML design and development was by no means perfect at the beginning. If flash was truly useless or pointless eye-candy it would have died long ago with the blink tag. But innovative people continue to do amazing things that are impossible or clumsy with HTML/CGI devlopment.
We're talking about a transition from click-reload-click-reload to an authentic GUI interface for on-line applications.
Yes, the 'developer' interface isn't obvious right away, but a few tweaks here and there and you can easily notch out a well organized coding interface.
The next version is working on some problems brought up here, but some people are so ignorant of flash's capabilities it astounds me they have the confidence to even make a statement on the matter.
Has anyone ever tried typing 'Microsoft sucks' or just microsoft(without dollar sign), as the displayed messenger name. It wont work! microsoft actually added some code to prevent it. Maybe they have a valid reason, maybe they don't. Can't wait to see what they do with this.
"we have detected the words 'microsoft' and 'sucks' together in one sentence, this call has been disconnected."