This forum can be a scary place, 'cause we got lax rules: let's see your war face. Take a breath, and roll the dice, you might find out we're really nice.
Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:43 pm
An artist that doesn't want people to view/listen to their works could hardly be called an artist.
Copyrights are somewhat neccessary, though not to the extent people believe, for making money on works. They however limit people's ability to view/listen to works causing a direct conflict with what should normally be the primary motivation for being an artist.
So I'll restate that the function of copyrights is to make money.
Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:18 am
I could try to phrase this in my own words, but Cory Doctorow does it so much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow#Opinions_on_intellectual_property wrote:Doctorow believes that copyright laws should be liberalized to allow for free sharing of all digital media. He has also advocated filesharing. He argues that copyright holders should have a monopoly on selling their own digital media, and copyright laws should only come into play when someone attempts to sell a product currently under someone else's copyright.
Doctorow is an opponent of DRM, claiming that it limits the free sharing of digital media and frequently causes problems for legitimate users (including registration problems that lock users out of their own purchases and prevent them from being able to move their media to other devices and platforms).
Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:51 am
I'm a fan of only suing those who try to profit from your works. It's honestly not even the bands who really care about file sharing, it is the labels because the bands themselves make small amounts of money of recordings.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:52 am
ownership as a concept to be separated from the good of any person who experiences it is bad: give credit where it is due and let everyone benefit from it
Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:14 am
It wouldn't be a problem for me if it wasn't for the fact that copyright holders are too tightass'd over their legal rights. Seriously, how is a youtube video gonna harm your sales? In no way possible.
And either ways I'm a fan of buying albums I'm really looking forward to since nothing beats cd-ripped sound quality.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:35 am
It's more the scare of people of people taking said items off the net and redistributing them for profit.
However, can there be a solution to copyright laws? As far as I'm aware, any more leniency to either side would cut profits for artists, who find it harder to distribute their work, since it relays on a grapevine. Any less and non-profit downloading becomes the norm, and an artist would only profit from concerts (though funding said concerts would be difficult for artists).
As much as we say a fan would buy to help support their group. The profits from those that just liked it for the moment would plummet (and that's where most sales are made, upon release).
Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:35 am
You realize most bands make their money off of touring and concerts? The amount of money bands are making from live performances have increased.http://boingboing.net/2009/11/13/labels ... osing.html
Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:37 am
Well just because record labels are seen as The Machine, it doesn't mean that they don't deserve to make money. All I'm asking is that they let people use their music in youtube videos.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:40 am
Are you kidding labels won't even allow their videos to be imbedded anymore.http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/pd ... go-youtube
I know labels are trying to make money but when you are charging $10-15 per cd and a band is lucky to see a dollar or two in return, fuck them.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:48 am
Ok granted, EMI is a total douche. But many bands wouldn't be where they are without the publicity record labels can get them. Out of plain curiosity do we have any numbers to show much it costs to record an album [including the cost of an individual cd case]?
Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:05 pm
Most bands don't rely on their labels for promotion especially in the internet age. OkGo was pretty much marketed by the videos they paid to produce and then became imbedded on blogs across the internet.
In this thread is multiple links on the costs of producing cds. The other issue I have is charging the full price on a digital copy of an album when there is no physical duplication costs and the bands are not seeing increased profits from it.http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=200983
Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:22 pm
Charging full price for a digital copy is absurd. There are some technical details I am not familiar with [as in how much goes to let's say Apple in itunes, cost of bandwith, etc...] but it shouldn't be the same price as a full retail cd.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:25 pm
The full price wouldn't be absurd if the bands were seeing increased profit from digital sales but there are bands from pre digital era who were getting screwed. If i'm going to buy an album i'm going to buy a physical copy directly from the band.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:32 pm
Well Radiohead put too much faith on the fans and let them decide what their "label free" digital album should cost. They made more revenue than they ever had on an album, but that's considering that all the money is going directly to them. There's no label to give them money [which blows].
The upside is that now they're pressure free and can make albums at their own pace. But must importantly, why am I talking about a band I don't give two fucks about?
Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:43 pm
The upside to not having a label is you fully control the music licensing, you control how it is recorded, you control the songs that make it on an album, you don't have to whore yourself out at the labels discretion. The big advantage to the digital music age now is that a bands can do large amounts of promotion for themselves, they can record decent sounding albums in their bedroom without spending thousands on a full studio rig, and you can sell your music directly to people.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:45 pm
I have yet to hear of a band that has done the exact same steps you've mentioned. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:47 pm
No band has fully done it but I think as time goes on it will become a more common thing except home production, home production is more to make demos or songs to put on a myspace to try and get on a label.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:48 pm
I'd love to see the digital age take over. Hell the majority of my time is spent in the computer, tv and xbox.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:47 pm
IT'S EVOLUTION BABY
Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:55 pm
BeeAre wrote:IT'S EVOLUTION BABY
Ishmael was a fun book to read and this was a pretty cool song to listen to after reading the book, what with it being heavily influenced by it.
Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:57 pm
BeeAre wrote:IT'S EVOLUTION BABY
Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:50 pm
PunkyChipsAhoy wrote:Well just because record labels are seen as The Machine, it doesn't mean that they don't deserve to make money.
Maybe not for the services they provide, but, as middlemen, they aren't very relevant in digital distribution. I'm more interested in what the state of intellectual property should be with respect to the artists themselves. I think a different business model is called for, perhaps relying mostly on live performances, merchandise, etc. as some groups have started, with electronic copies of music free or nearly so. Not sure how practical it would be on a large scale though.
Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:06 pm
I would expect the economy to take a toll if labels go bankrupt.
Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:08 pm
PunkyChipsAhoy wrote:I would expect the economy to take a toll if labels go bankrupt.
imho it would be less than terrifying.
Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:11 pm
I agree that the digital age is gonna be nice when it starts, but until then I'd rather get cd's for the music quality... at least for some albums.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.