A lot of musicians on my facebook newsfeed are passing around a link to this article. Lowry speaks the truth. It's time to stop making it excusable to download music without making an attempt to compensate the artist who created the music. A lot of the comments here are trying to argue that copyright is not property, copyright exists to promote public good... and then what? Is it for public good to download music for free? As long as the copyright term has not expired, it is exactly like property.
Beethoven belongs firmly to the "classical" style, including his later works. There is no way you can include him with the romantics. Schubert is the first "romantic," though still with one foot in the classical style.
Masnick only acknowledges that the metrics are faulty, he does not acknowledge that they don't actually support his statement that the music production has increased, which is contradicted by Lowry's direct observation, even if it's based on a limited sample size. All these metrics only reflect the side of the sellers of music, such as apple and amazon, which as it turns out is not the same as the creators of music. The only exception would be kickstarter, in which musicians both raise the funds and sell directly, but Masnick does not give any data on how prevalent its use is.
If Masnick didn't "create" this metric, which is faulty, it doesn't absolve him from using it to justify his claim that "the sky is rising" for music content creators. He also says:
Generally, independent musicians aren't necessarily registering their works as they perform them, but that shouldn't take away from the trend that it's easier than ever to record and play music and that the production of music is rising.
This contradicts Lowry's observation, based on his wife's recording business, that music production has decreased. Musicians no longer have the budget to make professional recordings, compared with the past and also are less willing to invest in it as in the past, because it doesn't recoup costs because of piracy. They instead concentrate on live shows.
One problem in Masnick's report, as I see it, is that he does not acknowledge that the "technical giants" do well for themselves in selling music without passing the gains along to the musicians who created it. He touts kickstarter, as if it's a viable route for most of the musicians. He mentions bandcamp without saying its actual share in music sold.
How exactly is his criticism "feeble"? Lowery catches several specific problems with the report, such as including game revenue in its metrics and using "music transactions" instead of music revenues. Are you saying these don't count or are somehow invalid?
I see no problem with Lowery establishing his credentials upfront. It allows the reader to understand his biases and also decide what statements can be taken at face value. For instance, I know upfront that the author actually understands what is involved in the process of producing a record and the process of making a recording. The same cannot be said of the majority of those posting on slashdot. For instance, I saw someone commenting negatively about Lowry's description of needing to position microphones, which takes time. The process of recording is still a labor-intensive process, in spite of the technical advances.
I think it is quite relevant to establish whether a report that he criticizes may be biased. Whether or not it rises to the level of "propaganda" or if you want a more politically correct term, does not matter. This is still relevant and from what I understand it is not stated clearly in that report and that site.
Pretty much all of your criticism comes down to presentation, rather than substance.
The slashdot's story is about Lowery's article, which has the same title as the Slashdot's story. I believe that this is what the majority has been discussing. You, however, came in with a snarky post without qualifying that you want to discuss his facebook post from a long time ago and the TechDirt's criticism based on the same. In other words, you want to create your own discussion, based on your own perspective, and your main concern is how Lowery presents himself on Techdirt. I believe others may have been misled by this, as I was, thinking that this is discussion of Lowery's actual position.
what's that supposed to prove? That Lowery can use non-censured language? That's it?
I read the whole 5-part article that Lowery wrote, which is well-argued and deserves much respect. I also read the link that you provided in which a blogger criticizes his position without any qualification, then in the comments tries to weasel out of it by saying that he is really responding to a facebook post. That criticism contains nothing persuasive for me and no real data. If you care to point me to what specifically you agree in that criticism, then maybe I'll understand your position. Otherwise, what I see is a well-written, long article by Lowery and half-assed criticism of what turns out to be a facebook post by Lowery from a TechDirt blogger (sorry I forget the name) and then uncivil comments after that blog, which don't sway me one way or the other.
My comment was posted as AC because I didn't realize that I was not logged in.
As far as your assertion that Lowerly's posts were a fail, I disagree completely. After reading in full both Lowerly's posts and Masnick's criticism of apparently Lowerly's Facebook posts, I came away with much respect for Lowerly and zero respect for Masnick and for TechDirt.
Your implication that Lowerly somehow pays me to comment is simply idiotic and paranoid.
First of all, what does marginal cost have to do with anything? Music costs time and money to create. Same with books. Same with all intellectual property. Do you propose also that the writers give away their work too by publishing it on the net? And earn money some other way?
Second, we're not talking about other governments. ASCAP and BMI are U.S. organization for composers and performers. There is virtually no support from this government, there are no "wealthy patrons" or endorsements -- where do you get this shit from?! When the government subsidizes creation of music, then maybe you can enjoy it for free -- your tax dollars at work.
And for the record, whistling a tune is "fair use" so feel free to whistle as much as you want. That is, unless you gather a company and start charging them money for listening to you.
I am so sick of hearing how an artist should just give away his/her art for free and be happy to be able to make art at all. Why is it ok to charge money for food -- when you grow it on your farm -- but not for music -- when you grow it in your head? When I come back from my "day job" at the end of the day, completely destroyed from writing the code all day, it's pretty hard to switch and write music. And while I may give away my music for free and be happy when someone enjoys it, I don't feel one bit obligated to do this, and especially hear someone telling me I'm supposed to give it away.
So it actually makes me happy when ASCAP or BMI tries to get some money whenever music is played. I may not see one cent of it personally, but I think people should get used to the idea of paying for intellectual property rather than to always expect the artist to subsidize their art through "a day job."
The fact of the matter is, the employment in U.S. is not really dictated by free market -- because it's so hard to start a company and compete with established business. As a result, the big companies can do whatever they want without feeling the consequences right away. I don't know how else to explain how they can pay those huge salaries to the top level management and CEO and still be in business. They can afford to outsource, even if in the end it may or may not be worth it. Meanwhile, U.S. programmers who are out of job are losing their skills.
So I say, let's put in some protection laws. I'm really tired of pro-outsourcers talking about how globalization will ultimately benefit us -- because it won't, the situation now is different. In the past you could make a case (which I'm not sure is so valid) that the people losing manufacturing jobs can be retrained to do IT and get higher wages. But there is really no other industry outside IT we could go to other than low-level service jobs. And neither biotech or nanotech or anything else that's supposed to be 'the next big thing' can employ this many people. For one thing, not everyone has the brainpower to do research. This is really the end of the road, unless you can jump into sales or management.
Unless you're a Mother Theresa, you're a bloody hypocrit. There are many nations besides India who need investment and money in the worst way. Africa, for example, with its AIDS epidemic. Are you sending any of your money to them? Are you doing any missionary work? I highly doubt it. I'm pretty sure when it comes to your money and your job, your whole reasoning changes to something like "I work hard, I deserve the money I earn." So then why should Americans be concerned about Indian jobs being created when their own jobs disappear and they see all the work (and money!) they put in education just going to waste?
As far as the article itself, I don't think outsourcing is as inevitable as they portray. All we need is a couple of laws that eliminate tax breaks for companies doing the outsourcing and also put similar limits on companies working on federal/state contracts. And BTW, this would be nothing new. I believe there are costs associating with bringing someone to work on H1B visa -- they have to "sponsor" the person. So we'll just have companies "sponsor" anyone who is not american resident.
I'm amazed why the government has to do so much in protecting the companies, as if they cannot make profit without protections. They're giving them tax breaks, environment breaks, god knows what. I believe there are many cases when cities give special breaks to companies to stay in the area, all in the hopes that they will generate jobs. And this is how they repay them!
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought that once you use a GPL code anywhere, your entire project has to become under GPL, that is you cannot simply link proprietary code with a library under GPL (that requires Lesser GPL)? How did you manage to hold those lines between proprietary and GPL code? I would really be interested in the answer, because I often wanted to use a GPL code (either as is or with modifications), but thought I couldn't do that without releasing code for entire product?
Would it be viable to create a union or a label for musicians that will represent them on sites that sell music online? I'm assuming that such label would pass almost all profits to musicians, minus administrative cost. I think the current system of five (or so?) major labels is unworkable, because they seem very uncooperative about licensing songs to others.
I don't have exactly the same pattern as you, but I also procrastinate quite a bit. The thing is, sometimes it's not so much lack of will power or lack of attention, but you don't feel strong enough to do the work. Two things I'd recommend:
1) do your work right after you wake up, in the morning. Try waking up earlier than you're used to (i.e. 6 or 7 a.m.). You'll be less inclined to waste time
2) if you can get some emotional inspiration, that's also good. Many suggested involving social aspect in your work -- these two are related.
Finally, look at what you are trying to collect at a given time. Most distractions promise easy rewards that accummulate -- for instance, gathering new information on the web. It's very easy to continue in a certain direction once you are on the path to accummulate something -- information, money, stamps -- whatever you're into. You have to find a way to apply this to your work. For that you need to break it down into smaller tasks and assign approximate time you'll need to complete them. Then your 'accummulation vector' will be knocking each task off. Alternatively, it can be how much items you learned or remembered.
The important thing is get off the rationalizing, conscious voice in which you explain what you have to do, and somehow connect with the mostly non-verbal part of you that actually does the work by stringing together one idea to the next, in a sequence.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of musicians on my facebook newsfeed are passing around a link to this article. Lowry speaks the truth. It's time to stop making it excusable to download music without making an attempt to compensate the artist who created the music. A lot of the comments here are trying to argue that copyright is not property, copyright exists to promote public good ... and then what? Is it for public good to download music for free? As long as the copyright term has not expired, it is exactly like property.
Beethoven belongs firmly to the "classical" style, including his later works. There is no way you can include him with the romantics. Schubert is the first "romantic," though still with one foot in the classical style.
Masnick only acknowledges that the metrics are faulty, he does not acknowledge that they don't actually support his statement that the music production has increased, which is contradicted by Lowry's direct observation, even if it's based on a limited sample size. All these metrics only reflect the side of the sellers of music, such as apple and amazon, which as it turns out is not the same as the creators of music. The only exception would be kickstarter, in which musicians both raise the funds and sell directly, but Masnick does not give any data on how prevalent its use is.
Generally, independent musicians aren't necessarily registering their works as they perform them, but that shouldn't take away from the trend that it's easier than ever to record and play music and that the production of music is rising.
This contradicts Lowry's observation, based on his wife's recording business, that music production has decreased. Musicians no longer have the budget to make professional recordings, compared with the past and also are less willing to invest in it as in the past, because it doesn't recoup costs because of piracy. They instead concentrate on live shows.
One problem in Masnick's report, as I see it, is that he does not acknowledge that the "technical giants" do well for themselves in selling music without passing the gains along to the musicians who created it. He touts kickstarter, as if it's a viable route for most of the musicians. He mentions bandcamp without saying its actual share in music sold.
I see no problem with Lowery establishing his credentials upfront. It allows the reader to understand his biases and also decide what statements can be taken at face value. For instance, I know upfront that the author actually understands what is involved in the process of producing a record and the process of making a recording. The same cannot be said of the majority of those posting on slashdot. For instance, I saw someone commenting negatively about Lowry's description of needing to position microphones, which takes time. The process of recording is still a labor-intensive process, in spite of the technical advances.
I think it is quite relevant to establish whether a report that he criticizes may be biased. Whether or not it rises to the level of "propaganda" or if you want a more politically correct term, does not matter. This is still relevant and from what I understand it is not stated clearly in that report and that site.
Pretty much all of your criticism comes down to presentation, rather than substance.
The slashdot's story is about Lowery's article, which has the same title as the Slashdot's story. I believe that this is what the majority has been discussing. You, however, came in with a snarky post without qualifying that you want to discuss his facebook post from a long time ago and the TechDirt's criticism based on the same. In other words, you want to create your own discussion, based on your own perspective, and your main concern is how Lowery presents himself on Techdirt. I believe others may have been misled by this, as I was, thinking that this is discussion of Lowery's actual position.
what's that supposed to prove? That Lowery can use non-censured language? That's it? I read the whole 5-part article that Lowery wrote, which is well-argued and deserves much respect. I also read the link that you provided in which a blogger criticizes his position without any qualification, then in the comments tries to weasel out of it by saying that he is really responding to a facebook post. That criticism contains nothing persuasive for me and no real data. If you care to point me to what specifically you agree in that criticism, then maybe I'll understand your position. Otherwise, what I see is a well-written, long article by Lowery and half-assed criticism of what turns out to be a facebook post by Lowery from a TechDirt blogger (sorry I forget the name) and then uncivil comments after that blog, which don't sway me one way or the other.
My comment was posted as AC because I didn't realize that I was not logged in. As far as your assertion that Lowerly's posts were a fail, I disagree completely. After reading in full both Lowerly's posts and Masnick's criticism of apparently Lowerly's Facebook posts, I came away with much respect for Lowerly and zero respect for Masnick and for TechDirt. Your implication that Lowerly somehow pays me to comment is simply idiotic and paranoid.
Second, we're not talking about other governments. ASCAP and BMI are U.S. organization for composers and performers. There is virtually no support from this government, there are no "wealthy patrons" or endorsements -- where do you get this shit from?! When the government subsidizes creation of music, then maybe you can enjoy it for free -- your tax dollars at work.
And for the record, whistling a tune is "fair use" so feel free to whistle as much as you want. That is, unless you gather a company and start charging them money for listening to you.
So it actually makes me happy when ASCAP or BMI tries to get some money whenever music is played. I may not see one cent of it personally, but I think people should get used to the idea of paying for intellectual property rather than to always expect the artist to subsidize their art through "a day job."
The fact of the matter is, the employment in U.S. is not really dictated by free market -- because it's so hard to start a company and compete with established business. As a result, the big companies can do whatever they want without feeling the consequences right away. I don't know how else to explain how they can pay those huge salaries to the top level management and CEO and still be in business. They can afford to outsource, even if in the end it may or may not be worth it. Meanwhile, U.S. programmers who are out of job are losing their skills.
So I say, let's put in some protection laws. I'm really tired of pro-outsourcers talking about how globalization will ultimately benefit us -- because it won't, the situation now is different. In the past you could make a case (which I'm not sure is so valid) that the people losing manufacturing jobs can be retrained to do IT and get higher wages. But there is really no other industry outside IT we could go to other than low-level service jobs. And neither biotech or nanotech or anything else that's supposed to be 'the next big thing' can employ this many people. For one thing, not everyone has the brainpower to do research. This is really the end of the road, unless you can jump into sales or management.
As far as the article itself, I don't think outsourcing is as inevitable as they portray. All we need is a couple of laws that eliminate tax breaks for companies doing the outsourcing and also put similar limits on companies working on federal/state contracts. And BTW, this would be nothing new. I believe there are costs associating with bringing someone to work on H1B visa -- they have to "sponsor" the person. So we'll just have companies "sponsor" anyone who is not american resident.
I'm amazed why the government has to do so much in protecting the companies, as if they cannot make profit without protections. They're giving them tax breaks, environment breaks, god knows what. I believe there are many cases when cities give special breaks to companies to stay in the area, all in the hopes that they will generate jobs. And this is how they repay them!
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought that once you use a GPL code anywhere, your entire project has to become under GPL, that is you cannot simply link proprietary code with a library under GPL (that requires Lesser GPL)? How did you manage to hold those lines between proprietary and GPL code? I would really be interested in the answer, because I often wanted to use a GPL code (either as is or with modifications), but thought I couldn't do that without releasing code for entire product?
Would it be viable to create a union or a label for musicians that will represent them on sites that sell music online? I'm assuming that such label would pass almost all profits to musicians, minus administrative cost. I think the current system of five (or so?) major labels is unworkable, because they seem very uncooperative about licensing songs to others.
I don't have exactly the same pattern as you, but I also procrastinate quite a bit. The thing is, sometimes it's not so much lack of will power or lack of attention, but you don't feel strong enough to do the work. Two things I'd recommend: 1) do your work right after you wake up, in the morning. Try waking up earlier than you're used to (i.e. 6 or 7 a.m.). You'll be less inclined to waste time 2) if you can get some emotional inspiration, that's also good. Many suggested involving social aspect in your work -- these two are related. Finally, look at what you are trying to collect at a given time. Most distractions promise easy rewards that accummulate -- for instance, gathering new information on the web. It's very easy to continue in a certain direction once you are on the path to accummulate something -- information, money, stamps -- whatever you're into. You have to find a way to apply this to your work. For that you need to break it down into smaller tasks and assign approximate time you'll need to complete them. Then your 'accummulation vector' will be knocking each task off. Alternatively, it can be how much items you learned or remembered. The important thing is get off the rationalizing, conscious voice in which you explain what you have to do, and somehow connect with the mostly non-verbal part of you that actually does the work by stringing together one idea to the next, in a sequence.