Yeah, you seem hung up on the romantic notion that music shouldn't be sullied by money. The majority of musicians aren't in it "for the money" (it is very difficult to become rich writing or performing music, very few do). But that's not to say musicians don't, or shouldn't, look to make an living from their time and talent. Nor should they be prevented from earning more if they are more skilled (by which I mean they produce music that pleases more people, rather than attempting to make a value judgement on a matter of taste). In every other profession you are rewarded by your skill at performing your job and the demand for your services. What make musicians any less deserving? We don't live in a communist society, to each according to their needs, so why should musicians?
So if they can't earn enough to do this, because avenues of earnings have been removed, then they will have to earn a living another way. That leaves you with the music be produced by part-time amateurs. No reason why they can't produce good music, but there's a reason why professionals in all walks of life are better. Be it footballers, artists, cooks or builders. Professionals are better because they don't have to spend time earning a living elsewhere.
Do you want all you music produced by amateurs?
I cant explain why otherwise you are so sure that people wont pay you for your music when state enforced copyrights disappear. Er, what do you think file-sharing shows? Do you think people are copying MP3s for free just because they have a moral objection to copyright legislation? They do it because they can. They don't pay because they don't have to. That's human nature and that's why we need laws.
I also think it's cute you think a real musician should care more about attaining fans than earning a living. Very romantic. Do you apply this to your own work? "Don't pay me, boss, it would just be pandering to my for-profit personality. I'd rather you be my fan, that's what matters most."
It's not exactly a killer's row of quality music. Well exactly. Anyone proposing that a change in business practices is going to suddenly usher in a golden age of great music is, frankly, an idiot. Which is why I suspect most who suggest it are actually more concerned about bragging about how highly tuned their taste in music is.
And the point is the quality of music is all a matter of taste anyway. I would happily pay to see three of those acts you list. The very reason that they are earning so much is because a lot of people like them. Changing copyright law won't change that in the slightest.
I look forward to the day when musicians will again be forced to perform live fairly frequently to make a living. Great. And composers? You know, the people who write the music but don't necessarily play it, or don't play live. They're the ones that actually collect royalties now. Where's their living going to come from? And all the styles of music that simply don't work in a live performance, either for the performer or the listener?
I've had enough of this overproduced shit with pitch shifted vocals and talentless anti-creative jingle-like songwriting spawned by the music industry. So don't listen to it. What do you find difficult about this idea to grasp? And how exactly do you think removing copyright is going to change anything? The music industry is an industry based on profit. It produces what sells. What sells is what people want to hear. You may fancy yourself as a discerning music connoisseur, but most people like "overproduced shit. All your belly-aching about it does nothing but establish for everyone's benefit how so much more refined your tastes are. Thanks for that, well done, we got the message.
The concept of copyright in music has no moral basis So how does "if you don't pay to listen to my music, I stop making it and go earn a living some other way" grab you as a basis?
Surely not! kdawson posting a biased commentary stemming from ars technica article?? When does this ever happen?
Unfortunately Sony can't win here as it has joined Microsoft in the slashdot hate club. It used to be that development of new technology was a welcome sight, and whether it was a success depended on the market and its true value. This used to be a sign of a vibrant, competitive and innovative industry.
Apparently no longer. Competing technology is a standards war. Independent innovation is proprietary lock-in. All very bad things that must be stopped. Damn you, Sony! Stop developing stuff and giving us alternatives!
The parallels are obvious. Person reveals what should be private in public media to prove a point, scoffing at the dangers. Can we expect the same result? It certainly provided much amusement the first time.
If you aren't rigorously checking preconditions on *every* operation you perform, you're not going to cut it as a kernel dev anyway. Quite the reverse. If you need to check preconditions on **every** operation then you clearly don't have enough control over what your sloppy code might be doing. You check preconditions when necessary and relevant. Anything more is exactly the kind of wasted effort you don't want in a kernel.
I thought to myself, their must be some higher level idiom that protects against buffer overflow, because no sane architect would implement such a dangerous function otherwise. Welcome to C, have you been introduced? A real programming language that treats you like a big grown-up coder without baby-sitting your every call. C assumes that you are smarter than it, and so are capable of designing your own code. If you want to code crap then it's your problem, you're the coder.
What makes you think it's the either the responsibility, or in the interests, of the music industry to improve (in your opinion) your taste in music?
Your taste has changed because you're 5 years older, just like everyone listens to different stuff than they did when they were in their mid-teens. MP3s, file-sharing and google haven't made the slightest difference to this.
Look, stop talking about facts when what people are venting here is justifications.
"I download off torrents because CDs just keep getting more expensive and it's not fair!" = Justification flying in the face of the facts. By my reckoning CDs are nearly 30% cheaper than 10 years ago.
"CDs cost nothing to produce and are cheaper to make than ever." = Justification flying in the face of facts. Not to mention pretty irrelevant. CDs are priced according to the market dynamics, just like any other commodity. How much they cost to make is just one factor of many.
"The music they make nowadays is all rubbish anyway!" = Justification and bizarre logic. Lowest common denominator popular music has always been crap. And if it's so bad why do you want it?
"I file share because the evil music industry rips off the artists and it's not fair!" = Justification on an issue that didn't seem to worry anyone that much 10 years ago. 6 years ago slashdot was all "I want to pay, but there's nowhere to buy MP3s!! So I've no option but to file-share! The Music Industry just don't get it!" No-one seemed to be overly worried about the poor artists then when that justification was good-to-go. Funny that.
The price of a CD is more in most stores now than it was 10 years ago You know, just because people keep saying things doesn't make them true. Let's have some facts;
Price of chart CD on www.hmv.co.uk today; £8.99. Price of chart CD at Amazon; in the range of £5 - £9 Price of mainstream advertised CD in Q Magazine in November 1997; £11.99 - £12.99
So can we just stop with bollocks about CD prices? The price of a CD is about 30% cheaper than it was 10 years ago. In real terms that make it significantly cheaper.
The quality of the music from the big labels is usually fairly average. It's all the same dribble, over compressed and engineered to sound "popular". Mainstream music has always been 90% dross. Are you only just noticing this? Yet amazingly people people still want it. Guess that's where personal taste comes into it.
Absolutely. Cos all types of music work well live, and all musicians are great live performers. And they should all sell their music to the highest bidder in endorsement and sponsorship deals, because fans love adverts with their music and fully respect musicians who commercialise their music.
Well that's obvious. Technology and the interweb is going to continue changing the landscape of lots of industries, not just music.
But what's more notable is that every example given by Byrne ends with the musician getting paid for their music. No-where is it suggested that everyone takes a copy for free and then self-servingly pontificates about how the musicians only have themselves to blame because their business model is obsolete.
So what's the excuse going to be when the big nasty music companies are out the picture? Cos I'll guarantee now, people aren't suddenly going to stop file sharing music. They'll just scrape around for another excuse to justify why they shouldn't pay for it.
It's actually quite funny. This is an immature organisation that reacts like 8 year old when caught in the act, and true to form adopted the Bart Simpson defense; Carelessly toss evidence aside then repeat mantra; "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything!"
Then they go treating the Judge like she was an idiot, not up with computers and this crazy new interweb music-sharing thing like us 1337 kidz.
Guess the idiots were them and they got what they deserved.
Who are the admins to determine what is "valuable" or not? They're no-one, which is why they don't determine this at all.
Editors make the decisions about what should be in Wikipedia, following policy defined by Editors and Admins. What's "valuable" is not a consideration that features in decisions. It's what's notable.
That means a single individual who treasures their rock collection above all things, valuable beyond mere money, will find that Wikipedia still isn't interested in it. Because it's not notable. And notable means having enough people also interested in it, and writing about it, to a degree that the facts about it can be accurately quoted and verified. Its "value" is irrelevant because, as you say yourself, "value" is always a subjective judgement.
I want a NEW style of book: Encyclopedia + Dictionary + Manual + Tutorial Hey! I have exactly that here! It also has Fiction + Entertainment! It's called The Internet. Maybe it'll catch on.
How hard is it to setup "World" site same time with added price? Probably very hard indeed. It isn't just a matter of sticking the files onto a big server with a paypal link.
If you are attempting to do this legally and collect money for it legally, there is no end of licensing and bargaining that has to be sorted. You only have to look at the current writers' strike in the US to see that it isn't a straightforward issue. Everyone wants their cut of the action and the laws you need to comply with are different in different countries. Plus you'd want to ensure that a sudden foreign demand doesn't swamp your site and degrade the service within the UK.
They're just starting out on this, and they do say they're working on providing access outside the UK. Give them a chance.
They are lagging the real thing on purpose just to claim the multi platform changes were not needed. I don't understand your logic here. You don't think we have multi platforms in the UK?
The issue is: Content BELONGS to BBC And the BBC BELONGS to their licence payers in the UK in an arrangement enforced by law through the UK elected parliament. This means the service is being paid for by residents of the UK.
It's like the whole PAL outrage all over again! You should have heard me complain back then when I discovered that the supposedly free BBC service required that I buy a television equipped with the proprietary format PAL.
So that meant I was denied access from my 8 track simply because they refused to supply the broadcasts on it! Boy, was I mad! How was this TV service supposed to be free if they make you buy certain equipment first?!
And now they're demanding that I go out of my way to download a free software package! Their thoughtless arrogance knows no bounds!
I fear your words are wasted. Most RIAA article summaries on slashdot contain distortions of the story far beyond what could be attributed to sloppiness. You can only conclude they are wilful and deliberate.
Few would argue that the RIAA don't have problems, but you won't find reasoned analysis of them here. Misrepresentation of your opposition's stance is always a sign of being aware that your own position is weak.
Most of what's being produced as a result of this "economic incentive" you speak of is total absolute crap. Thanks for introducing whine number two, right on schedule. "I don't want to pay for it, cos it's crap, yet strangely I still want to waste my time viewing it as long as it's free". Just how much consideration should we give to the opinions of someone who values their time so little and has so little taste? And if root of this problem is the "economic incentive", what do you suggest replaces it? Just what else is going to get Hollywood out of bed and spending millions making TV/films that aren't crap?? Cos I'm telling you now, the warm glow of knowing that people can see it for free on Youtube isn't going to cut it.
..and don't be bringin' your "freeloading" bullshit around here either, laddy-boy. Are you suggesting that web-sites are hosting unauthorized content, but keeping the adverts in the content, so that makes it alright because that represents payment as far as you're concerned? The adverts are not shown, they are the first things to come out. So no-one is obliged to watch them, and no-one is either paying for the content, or buying from the advertisers who in part paid for the content. So please, remind us, just exactly is being contributed here that exempts it from the "freeloading" tag?
if television networks had their way, any sort of consumer recording device (VCR, DVD recorder, DVR, computer video capture, friggin' tape recorder even!) would be outlawed, being caught with one would ruin you financially for the rest of your life
Some Guy Who Doesn't Want To Take Out A 2nd Mortgage To Go See A FSCKING Movie Wow, them there's some mighty wild strawmen you're building. Care to come back and join us in reality? But wait.. . hang on, why would you want to pay anything to see "A FSCKING Movie". They're "total absolute crap", remember?? Just what strange world do you live in that forces you to hand over a 2nd Mortgage to see something you don't want to see??? Or is just everything you're saying a smokescreen thrown up to disguise the unpalatable truth? Maybe you have no positive suggestions because you're happy with things as are. You want to see it but you don't want to pay for it. There's a word for that....
I don't know. A good percentage of slashdot posts willing argue that illegal does not therefore necessarily imply improper. I took the phrase as a combined double whammy used to emphasise just how naughty the auctions were. Which is pretty much in line with how programming logic would interpret it.
If we chose to interpret it otherwise, we must conclude that not only has Microsoft taken it upon itself to determine what is improper, but also has the ability to enforce this on online auctions, and keep it quiet. But alas! Your masterly analysis of some PR fluff has exposed the hidden, shocking truth!
I know what sounds far more likely to me, and I suspect so do you. But I guess only the second can be used as a stick to beat Microsoft with, no matter how feebly.
I'm sorry, what business model should they use instead? Quit asking questions. "Business model" is the Slashdot magic phrase that anyone can use if they want to whine about how unfair evil corporations are. No-one actually expects to be asked to explain what they mean by it. That would only reveal that no, they don't have an MBA and haven't the first clue of what they're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope.
It's going to be called omfg!noob!lol!111 Just so everyone knows how awesome and kewl it is.
100% Funny. Your son must think you were born yesterday.
You were kidding? Right?
So if they can't earn enough to do this, because avenues of earnings have been removed, then they will have to earn a living another way. That leaves you with the music be produced by part-time amateurs. No reason why they can't produce good music, but there's a reason why professionals in all walks of life are better. Be it footballers, artists, cooks or builders. Professionals are better because they don't have to spend time earning a living elsewhere.
Do you want all you music produced by amateurs? I cant explain why otherwise you are so sure that people wont pay you for your music when state enforced copyrights disappear. Er, what do you think file-sharing shows? Do you think people are copying MP3s for free just because they have a moral objection to copyright legislation? They do it because they can. They don't pay because they don't have to. That's human nature and that's why we need laws.
I also think it's cute you think a real musician should care more about attaining fans than earning a living. Very romantic. Do you apply this to your own work? "Don't pay me, boss, it would just be pandering to my for-profit personality. I'd rather you be my fan, that's what matters most."
And the point is the quality of music is all a matter of taste anyway. I would happily pay to see three of those acts you list. The very reason that they are earning so much is because a lot of people like them. Changing copyright law won't change that in the slightest.
Surely not! kdawson posting a biased commentary stemming from ars technica article?? When does this ever happen?
Unfortunately Sony can't win here as it has joined Microsoft in the slashdot hate club. It used to be that development of new technology was a welcome sight, and whether it was a success depended on the market and its true value. This used to be a sign of a vibrant, competitive and innovative industry.
Apparently no longer. Competing technology is a standards war. Independent innovation is proprietary lock-in. All very bad things that must be stopped. Damn you, Sony! Stop developing stuff and giving us alternatives!
It's more subtle than that.
Bank gives away £500 without proper authorisation = their money, their problem.
You get your identity stolen = your identity, your problem.
See how a subtle change in terminology puts the onus on you rather than the bank?
When I read this story I was reminded of this other recent story;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm
The parallels are obvious. Person reveals what should be private in public media to prove a point, scoffing at the dangers. Can we expect the same result? It certainly provided much amusement the first time.
What makes you think it's the either the responsibility, or in the interests, of the music industry to improve (in your opinion) your taste in music?
Your taste has changed because you're 5 years older, just like everyone listens to different stuff than they did when they were in their mid-teens. MP3s, file-sharing and google haven't made the slightest difference to this.
Look, stop talking about facts when what people are venting here is justifications.
"I download off torrents because CDs just keep getting more expensive and it's not fair!" = Justification flying in the face of the facts. By my reckoning CDs are nearly 30% cheaper than 10 years ago.
"CDs cost nothing to produce and are cheaper to make than ever." = Justification flying in the face of facts. Not to mention pretty irrelevant. CDs are priced according to the market dynamics, just like any other commodity. How much they cost to make is just one factor of many.
"The music they make nowadays is all rubbish anyway!" = Justification and bizarre logic. Lowest common denominator popular music has always been crap. And if it's so bad why do you want it?
"I file share because the evil music industry rips off the artists and it's not fair!" = Justification on an issue that didn't seem to worry anyone that much 10 years ago. 6 years ago slashdot was all "I want to pay, but there's nowhere to buy MP3s!! So I've no option but to file-share! The Music Industry just don't get it!" No-one seemed to be overly worried about the poor artists then when that justification was good-to-go. Funny that.
Price of chart CD on www.hmv.co.uk today; £8.99. Price of chart CD at Amazon; in the range of £5 - £9
Price of mainstream advertised CD in Q Magazine in November 1997; £11.99 - £12.99
So can we just stop with bollocks about CD prices? The price of a CD is about 30% cheaper than it was 10 years ago. In real terms that make it significantly cheaper. The quality of the music from the big labels is usually fairly average. It's all the same dribble, over compressed and engineered to sound "popular". Mainstream music has always been 90% dross. Are you only just noticing this? Yet amazingly people people still want it. Guess that's where personal taste comes into it.
Absolutely. Cos all types of music work well live, and all musicians are great live performers. And they should all sell their music to the highest bidder in endorsement and sponsorship deals, because fans love adverts with their music and fully respect musicians who commercialise their music.
Well that's obvious. Technology and the interweb is going to continue changing the landscape of lots of industries, not just music.
But what's more notable is that every example given by Byrne ends with the musician getting paid for their music. No-where is it suggested that everyone takes a copy for free and then self-servingly pontificates about how the musicians only have themselves to blame because their business model is obsolete.
So what's the excuse going to be when the big nasty music companies are out the picture? Cos I'll guarantee now, people aren't suddenly going to stop file sharing music. They'll just scrape around for another excuse to justify why they shouldn't pay for it.
It's actually quite funny. This is an immature organisation that reacts like 8 year old when caught in the act, and true to form adopted the Bart Simpson defense; Carelessly toss evidence aside then repeat mantra; "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything!"
Then they go treating the Judge like she was an idiot, not up with computers and this crazy new interweb music-sharing thing like us 1337 kidz.
Guess the idiots were them and they got what they deserved.
Editors make the decisions about what should be in Wikipedia, following policy defined by Editors and Admins. What's "valuable" is not a consideration that features in decisions. It's what's notable.
That means a single individual who treasures their rock collection above all things, valuable beyond mere money, will find that Wikipedia still isn't interested in it. Because it's not notable. And notable means having enough people also interested in it, and writing about it, to a degree that the facts about it can be accurately quoted and verified. Its "value" is irrelevant because, as you say yourself, "value" is always a subjective judgement. I want a NEW style of book: Encyclopedia + Dictionary + Manual + Tutorial Hey! I have exactly that here! It also has Fiction + Entertainment! It's called The Internet. Maybe it'll catch on.
If you are attempting to do this legally and collect money for it legally, there is no end of licensing and bargaining that has to be sorted. You only have to look at the current writers' strike in the US to see that it isn't a straightforward issue. Everyone wants their cut of the action and the laws you need to comply with are different in different countries. Plus you'd want to ensure that a sudden foreign demand doesn't swamp your site and degrade the service within the UK.
They're just starting out on this, and they do say they're working on providing access outside the UK. Give them a chance. They are lagging the real thing on purpose just to claim the multi platform changes were not needed. I don't understand your logic here. You don't think we have multi platforms in the UK?
So that meant I was denied access from my 8 track simply because they refused to supply the broadcasts on it! Boy, was I mad! How was this TV service supposed to be free if they make you buy certain equipment first?!
And now they're demanding that I go out of my way to download a free software package! Their thoughtless arrogance knows no bounds!
I fear your words are wasted. Most RIAA article summaries on slashdot contain distortions of the story far beyond what could be attributed to sloppiness. You can only conclude they are wilful and deliberate.
Few would argue that the RIAA don't have problems, but you won't find reasoned analysis of them here. Misrepresentation of your opposition's stance is always a sign of being aware that your own position is weak.
..and don't be bringin' your "freeloading" bullshit around here either, laddy-boy. Are you suggesting that web-sites are hosting unauthorized content, but keeping the adverts in the content, so that makes it alright because that represents payment as far as you're concerned? The adverts are not shown, they are the first things to come out. So no-one is obliged to watch them, and no-one is either paying for the content, or buying from the advertisers who in part paid for the content. So please, remind us, just exactly is being contributed here that exempts it from the "freeloading" tag? if television networks had their way, any sort of consumer recording device (VCR, DVD recorder, DVR, computer video capture, friggin' tape recorder even!) would be outlawed, being caught with one would ruin you financially for the rest of your life Some Guy Who Doesn't Want To Take Out A 2nd Mortgage To Go See A FSCKING Movie Wow, them there's some mighty wild strawmen you're building. Care to come back and join us in reality? But wait.. . hang on, why would you want to pay anything to see "A FSCKING Movie". They're "total absolute crap", remember?? Just what strange world do you live in that forces you to hand over a 2nd Mortgage to see something you don't want to see??? Or is just everything you're saying a smokescreen thrown up to disguise the unpalatable truth? Maybe you have no positive suggestions because you're happy with things as are. You want to see it but you don't want to pay for it. There's a word for that....I don't know. A good percentage of slashdot posts willing argue that illegal does not therefore necessarily imply improper. I took the phrase as a combined double whammy used to emphasise just how naughty the auctions were. Which is pretty much in line with how programming logic would interpret it.
If we chose to interpret it otherwise, we must conclude that not only has Microsoft taken it upon itself to determine what is improper, but also has the ability to enforce this on online auctions, and keep it quiet. But alas! Your masterly analysis of some PR fluff has exposed the hidden, shocking truth!
I know what sounds far more likely to me, and I suspect so do you. But I guess only the second can be used as a stick to beat Microsoft with, no matter how feebly.
For someone reading slashdot, you seem distressingly clueless about the meaning of AND compared to OR.
I think you're telling us more about the calibre of artist you listen too, rather than any limitation of the album format.