Oh, that. Yeah of course. It doesn't even need to be stated, and I realise now that it was a misunderstanding, by my original statement referred to the claims in the summary, it never was about making a living from studio work, just *any* money. No one ever talked about making a living to begin with.
Great insight, thanks. Although I must clarify that when I was thinking of artists making some money for their studio albums I didn't think of any particular mode of distribution or anything, just pointing out that your studio work can (and should) still bring you money.
Well, I don't see the problem. So we've established that if they don't do concerts, they won't get the money they would have gotten if they had done concerts. OK, I'm not sure how that helps, although I can't disagree with that.
Just don't cry to me when no one knows who you are and won't buy your music because of it.
That's (partly) what record companies are for, to promote and sell your albums. That's how it's worked just great for decades and keeps on working, and made billions of dollars alone in the process. I don't see what's wrong with that.
There are many ways to profit by creating art without involving yourself in the public performance. If you only want to create art (e.g. music) and not perform it, you can get other artists to perform instead of you on tours and get your share from the profits. Or you can sell your artwork to other performers. Of course, you should not expect your profits to be the same since part of the profits should go to the performers.
Oooooor.. you could sell albums! Seriously, why does anyone in this thread act like selling albums is something that can't or shouldn't be done?
Copyright in the U.S. was not created as a social welfare device, but as an incentive to create. The question this research paper raises is whether strong copyright actually creates that incentive or not.
You keep calling other people dense, but I think it's you that doesn't get the argument that's occurring.
At last a comment that makes a bit of sense. You're right about copyright, its use is questionable. The problem with other people's comment that I deemed 'dense' was that they said artists shouldn't get a dime for their studio work. The problem at hand is copyright, not the actual sale of albums. Even without copyright you can sell albums. In that sense, the comments in question are indeed quite retarded.
Because apparently people aren't willing to buy it.
Oh yeah? Tell Steve Jobs. Apparently people are willing to buy billions of songs for $1 each. You can't say that "people aren't buying" when people still buy only marginally less than they used to. That's just bullshit. Piracy of music just isn't that big. If it was then the entire recording industry would be bankrupt. That's obviously not the case.
Nope, you were talking about someone who didn't want to tour.
No, I was talking about someone who only wanted to make studio albums.
Don't expect to be paid for the work you WANT to do if nobody is willing to pay you to do it.
But people have always been willing to pay for it.
Tell you what, if the artist creates by their personal hand EACH AND EVERY COPY, distributes it and ensures quality control on the recording and its copy, then this is when he did something to get the copy to us and he can ask to be paid.
That's retarded.
But if I take MY CD recorder, MY blank CDR, use MY time to create MY copy, why the hell should I pay HIM for MY work?
That's twice as retarded. That's like saying that all the worth of an album is the manufacturing costs.
"Flamebait? This? No, this is response. The original is flamebait. One person's "cultural" is another's "racist". The "British" aspect just happens to make it very easy to flip that conceptual card."
Well no, not at all.
You're picking the worst possible bits of British history and claiming that's British culture.
Culture consists of more than just the things a country has done wrong over the years. It consists of the architectural style of certain cities, it consists of traditional foods, it consists of accents, it consists of folk stories and that sort of thing.
A game that's culturally British could just be one based on British legend like Robin Hood or King Arthur, or it could just be any other game like Grand Theft Auto where the accents are British, the architecture, styles, rules of the road (driving on the left) are British and where instead of eating burgers for health you eat fish and chips.
As it happens you ARE being racist because you're associating the culture of British people today with some of their most atrocious acts in the past. You're inferring that British people still view the world the same now as they did back then. You do realise that inferring British culture is all about colonialism and imperialistic tendancies is as ignorant as saying all Islamic culture is about terrorism right?
Culture isn't a static thing throughout history, cultures change. Tying a modern culture to it's related country's past is ignorant at best. Jokes about tea drinking and such are fair enough because the British do drink a lot of tea still, but tying it to slavery and so forth? Get a fucking grip, I doubt there's a person alive in Britain today that supports slavery and if there is you're talking about the odd fringe nutcases and certainly not mainstream British culture.
What? You mean there's more to other countries of the rest of the world and their cultures than who they fought, who they invaded, and who they surrendered to??
I for example thought that French culture was all about Napoleon. Upon a quick googling, turns out they also had writers, philosophers, artists and shit. So much for my vision of the rest of the world defined by wars and national relationships with the USA.
You're all saying the same thing in this thread, but it doesn't make any sense. These people ALREADY make money by selling albums. Why should that stop?
What if you are a programmer but only want to work on things that actually interest you?
That's what I did. I'm making a living off writing on my own the program that interests me most. Should I not get any money for that?
Basically what you're all saying is "artists should work to get money" but for one thing they already work, even if it's not work that you approve of (maybe you do not approve of porn actors work and would want them to make porn for free on their spare time too?), and it already makes them money. And it's been working like this since before any of your grandparents made their first dollar. So why should it change?
OK, what the hell is wrong with you people? Here's reality : studio artists make albums, sell albums, make money. Yet in two thirds of Slashdot's distorted mind, they should stop doing that and look for "a real job instead". What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do I have to explain a bunch of libertarians how the market basically works?! You have a bunch of people willing to buy what you want to sell, so why on Earth should you give up on that and give it up for free??
No if, the market DOES buy. And it gives good money. Ask Steve Jobs.
you would have donation from thousands or millions of people asking for new songs, et voila...
Yeah sure, imagine what would have happened to Axl Rose when people would have got tired of waiting for the Chinese Democracy they'd paid for a dozen years earlier. Or when artists would decide to retire. Or when artists would have announced to retire but came back. Either way that idea doesn't work, find something else.
Oh I have an idea, how about an artist makes an album, and when he's done making it he releases it, and people buy it if they want it? I'm pretty sure that could work...
You're a retard. If something pays because people are willing to pay for it, then it pays. It's not because a bunch of armchair pirates want to force anyone to give it up for free that it changes anything to that fact. Basically you decide arbitrarily that studio recorded music should be free, and therefore as a sort of feedback loop that makes it inherently unworthy of any money. You can't just say "this should be free, make it free" for something that's not free and that the market validated as something you can ask money for.
Most Slashdotters are libertarians, but when it comes to stuff you want for free you all turn to commies.
Well I only want to play video games and roleplay with friends, but I can't make money this way...
What the hell does it have to do with anything? I'm talking about artists getting a cut of the money on albums they sell. If the market will buy, it means you created value, value which you should get.
Not very long ago, most musicians did not expect to earn any money at all.
Bullshit. If you knew anything about classical music you'd know that all these guys whose compositions you heard were being paid for the works they produced. Their work was commissioned, i.e. they were paid to make it by someone who wanted them to make it.
Sorry but I really don't get your point. What does getting a cut on albums actually sold have anything to do with "being lazy and wanting to get money for free"?
Yes, but why did Mozart do all the things he did? Because he was commissioned for them, in other words paid. He died broke, but he still tried to make a living from his art. My point being, if no one had commissioned anything, then he wouldn't have done anywhere near as much as he did.
Well, I think the difference between making a living out of being an artist and being an artist for free is that when you're being paid you have more time and resources to devote to it, while if you have to make a living on the side then you're too busy flipping burgers to devote all your time to what you like to do.
What if you're an artist but only want to create art and not tour all over the place just to make money? I realise that most musicians seem to like doing concerts, but what if that's not what you want to do and just want to record albums?
Bertie & Wooster: The Game. Go on a policeman helmet stealing rampage, do whatever your servant tells you to do while avoiding getting married.
Battlefield: British Colonies. Take control of Africa and East Asia before France does! Beware of the native warriors, some throw very sharp slices of mango!
Hey if you pave a stretch of road with that, make the energy harvested available from a rail along the road and connect the engines of electric cars to that rail, do you get cars that can travel forever without spending any energy? OMG GREEN HOLY GRAIL!!
Also, pre-emptive 'whoosh' sound for anyone who wouldn't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh okay, I can agree with that.
Oh, that. Yeah of course. It doesn't even need to be stated, and I realise now that it was a misunderstanding, by my original statement referred to the claims in the summary, it never was about making a living from studio work, just *any* money. No one ever talked about making a living to begin with.
Great insight, thanks. Although I must clarify that when I was thinking of artists making some money for their studio albums I didn't think of any particular mode of distribution or anything, just pointing out that your studio work can (and should) still bring you money.
Well, I don't see the problem. So we've established that if they don't do concerts, they won't get the money they would have gotten if they had done concerts. OK, I'm not sure how that helps, although I can't disagree with that.
Just don't cry to me when no one knows who you are and won't buy your music because of it.
That's (partly) what record companies are for, to promote and sell your albums. That's how it's worked just great for decades and keeps on working, and made billions of dollars alone in the process. I don't see what's wrong with that.
There are many ways to profit by creating art without involving yourself in the public performance. If you only want to create art (e.g. music) and not perform it, you can get other artists to perform instead of you on tours and get your share from the profits. Or you can sell your artwork to other performers. Of course, you should not expect your profits to be the same since part of the profits should go to the performers.
Oooooor.. you could sell albums! Seriously, why does anyone in this thread act like selling albums is something that can't or shouldn't be done?
Copyright in the U.S. was not created as a social welfare device, but as an incentive to create. The question this research paper raises is whether strong copyright actually creates that incentive or not.
You keep calling other people dense, but I think it's you that doesn't get the argument that's occurring.
At last a comment that makes a bit of sense. You're right about copyright, its use is questionable. The problem with other people's comment that I deemed 'dense' was that they said artists shouldn't get a dime for their studio work. The problem at hand is copyright, not the actual sale of albums. Even without copyright you can sell albums. In that sense, the comments in question are indeed quite retarded.
Because apparently people aren't willing to buy it.
Oh yeah? Tell Steve Jobs. Apparently people are willing to buy billions of songs for $1 each. You can't say that "people aren't buying" when people still buy only marginally less than they used to. That's just bullshit. Piracy of music just isn't that big. If it was then the entire recording industry would be bankrupt. That's obviously not the case.
Nope, you were talking about someone who didn't want to tour.
No, I was talking about someone who only wanted to make studio albums.
Don't expect to be paid for the work you WANT to do if nobody is willing to pay you to do it.
But people have always been willing to pay for it.
Tell you what, if the artist creates by their personal hand EACH AND EVERY COPY, distributes it and ensures quality control on the recording and its copy, then this is when he did something to get the copy to us and he can ask to be paid.
That's retarded.
But if I take MY CD recorder, MY blank CDR, use MY time to create MY copy, why the hell should I pay HIM for MY work?
That's twice as retarded. That's like saying that all the worth of an album is the manufacturing costs.
"Flamebait? This? No, this is response. The original is flamebait. One person's "cultural" is another's "racist". The "British" aspect just happens to make it very easy to flip that conceptual card."
Well no, not at all.
You're picking the worst possible bits of British history and claiming that's British culture.
Culture consists of more than just the things a country has done wrong over the years. It consists of the architectural style of certain cities, it consists of traditional foods, it consists of accents, it consists of folk stories and that sort of thing.
A game that's culturally British could just be one based on British legend like Robin Hood or King Arthur, or it could just be any other game like Grand Theft Auto where the accents are British, the architecture, styles, rules of the road (driving on the left) are British and where instead of eating burgers for health you eat fish and chips.
As it happens you ARE being racist because you're associating the culture of British people today with some of their most atrocious acts in the past. You're inferring that British people still view the world the same now as they did back then. You do realise that inferring British culture is all about colonialism and imperialistic tendancies is as ignorant as saying all Islamic culture is about terrorism right?
Culture isn't a static thing throughout history, cultures change. Tying a modern culture to it's related country's past is ignorant at best. Jokes about tea drinking and such are fair enough because the British do drink a lot of tea still, but tying it to slavery and so forth? Get a fucking grip, I doubt there's a person alive in Britain today that supports slavery and if there is you're talking about the odd fringe nutcases and certainly not mainstream British culture.
What? You mean there's more to other countries of the rest of the world and their cultures than who they fought, who they invaded, and who they surrendered to??
I for example thought that French culture was all about Napoleon. Upon a quick googling, turns out they also had writers, philosophers, artists and shit. So much for my vision of the rest of the world defined by wars and national relationships with the USA.
You're all saying the same thing in this thread, but it doesn't make any sense. These people ALREADY make money by selling albums. Why should that stop?
What if you are a programmer but only want to work on things that actually interest you?
That's what I did. I'm making a living off writing on my own the program that interests me most. Should I not get any money for that?
Basically what you're all saying is "artists should work to get money" but for one thing they already work, even if it's not work that you approve of (maybe you do not approve of porn actors work and would want them to make porn for free on their spare time too?), and it already makes them money. And it's been working like this since before any of your grandparents made their first dollar. So why should it change?
OK, what the hell is wrong with you people? Here's reality : studio artists make albums, sell albums, make money. Yet in two thirds of Slashdot's distorted mind, they should stop doing that and look for "a real job instead". What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do I have to explain a bunch of libertarians how the market basically works?! You have a bunch of people willing to buy what you want to sell, so why on Earth should you give up on that and give it up for free??
OK, but why on Earth would you want to do that when you can SELL your work and that you'd make more money this way?
But if the market won't buy, what does it mean ?
No if, the market DOES buy. And it gives good money. Ask Steve Jobs.
you would have donation from thousands or millions of people asking for new songs, et voila...
Yeah sure, imagine what would have happened to Axl Rose when people would have got tired of waiting for the Chinese Democracy they'd paid for a dozen years earlier. Or when artists would decide to retire. Or when artists would have announced to retire but came back. Either way that idea doesn't work, find something else.
Oh I have an idea, how about an artist makes an album, and when he's done making it he releases it, and people buy it if they want it? I'm pretty sure that could work...
You're a retard. If something pays because people are willing to pay for it, then it pays. It's not because a bunch of armchair pirates want to force anyone to give it up for free that it changes anything to that fact. Basically you decide arbitrarily that studio recorded music should be free, and therefore as a sort of feedback loop that makes it inherently unworthy of any money. You can't just say "this should be free, make it free" for something that's not free and that the market validated as something you can ask money for.
Most Slashdotters are libertarians, but when it comes to stuff you want for free you all turn to commies.
Well I only want to play video games and roleplay with friends, but I can't make money this way...
What the hell does it have to do with anything? I'm talking about artists getting a cut of the money on albums they sell. If the market will buy, it means you created value, value which you should get.
Not very long ago, most musicians did not expect to earn any money at all.
Bullshit. If you knew anything about classical music you'd know that all these guys whose compositions you heard were being paid for the works they produced. Their work was commissioned, i.e. they were paid to make it by someone who wanted them to make it.
Sorry but I really don't get your point. What does getting a cut on albums actually sold have anything to do with "being lazy and wanting to get money for free"?
Yes, but why did Mozart do all the things he did? Because he was commissioned for them, in other words paid. He died broke, but he still tried to make a living from his art. My point being, if no one had commissioned anything, then he wouldn't have done anywhere near as much as he did.
Well, I think the difference between making a living out of being an artist and being an artist for free is that when you're being paid you have more time and resources to devote to it, while if you have to make a living on the side then you're too busy flipping burgers to devote all your time to what you like to do.
Yeah, the only difference is, like it or not, right now the studio artist makes $1-2 for each album sold, without it, well, he'd make nothing.
The names are Jeeves and Wooster
Oh yeah crap lol... My cloudy mind be damned!
What if you're an artist but only want to create art and not tour all over the place just to make money? I realise that most musicians seem to like doing concerts, but what if that's not what you want to do and just want to record albums?
Bertie & Wooster: The Game. Go on a policeman helmet stealing rampage, do whatever your servant tells you to do while avoiding getting married.
Battlefield: British Colonies. Take control of Africa and East Asia before France does! Beware of the native warriors, some throw very sharp slices of mango!
Okay that's all I've got, help me out guys!
If you put it like this then it makes sense. But if anything, converting energy from braking/slowing down should be done in the cars themselves.
Hey if you pave a stretch of road with that, make the energy harvested available from a rail along the road and connect the engines of electric cars to that rail, do you get cars that can travel forever without spending any energy? OMG GREEN HOLY GRAIL!!
Also, pre-emptive 'whoosh' sound for anyone who wouldn't get it.