Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
@Jonathan Out of the 7 years or so I have been howling about this stuff you are likely the only person who has not only made some valid points worthy of debate but, likely the only person capable of any semblance of nuance as well. I applaud you for that!
I have to get a few work things out of the way today but I shall respond accordingly asap.
"We have had copyright for over 300 years, and it has been supported because it benefits society by encouraging creativity and it is fair to the creators."
What its designed to do and what it actually does are two wildly different things. Keeping things that rightfully belong in the public domain(like freaking mickey mouse) out of it, is not useful, period..... in any way shape or form.
"The internet does not render the basic laws of Economics, ethics, or constitutional rights obsolete"
No exactly. no. It does, however, stand it on its head and give the rest of us creative folks a fighting chance.
I would suggest you start here..
With that said, proponents of trying to lock down or otherwise gatekeep things lose the argument at the starting line by bandying around terms like pirate, illegal, theft and so on. Because, in reality(read...the law) those terms are not even germane to the conversation.
Disclaimer: I can play a pretty mean guitar. I know most of my theory (usually lol...) I played in band for years. I had and have no desire to make a bunch of money doing it really, because it begins to conflate art with work... rendering it not quite as cathartic for me.
That and 5 nights a week in a bar is a bit much for me at my age lol...
The way I typically see it is folks on the other side of this debate can roll up their sleeves, listen to the tech sector(who arguably has provided you with all the free tools you would ever need to do whatever the hell you want with your work) and move forward... Or, folks can continue to get their panties in a bunch and accomplish nothing but pissing off fans and looking like complete heels.
It seems that those who embrace technology and are human about things do just fine. This is not restricted to music either. This fellow, for instance, got it right http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090219/1124433835.shtml
I will pop back in asap.
Hi, Will. I am more than happy to debate things on their merits, unfortunately there are literally zero metrics to back up your position. Unless they were funded by the RIAA. That is not an exaggeration.
Artists don't get paid fairly because the rubes in suits keep all the cash, and spend it on trying to ram legislation down uninformed throats... the sole purpose of which is to ultimately line the pockets of a handful of people.
That will hopefully keep you busy for a bit.
As a fan, I find this particularly offensive.. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/10/us-lovett-idUSN1030835920080710
Do you ever stop to think why the labels cant throw up Netflix, Spotify, what have you? Its because they don't give a flip about you(assuming you are a musician) or customers/fans. That much is abundantly clear.
There is no difference with Hollywrong either http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
Same shit, different rubes in suits. https://www.google.com/search?q=hollywood+accounting&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
but I digress,
As I was cooking some food.... it occurred to me that not only is this post devoid of fact, it seems wildly hypocritical of this fellow to whine about "disruptive business modalities" when he is using indiegogo to fund a project.
I guess forward thinking technology is only ok when you it suits YOU.
Additionally, you lose any semblance of credibility when you mention the vitriolic turd that is David Lowery within the context of trying to be reasonable.
Artists would get paid if their corporate overlords bothered to pay them....
Nice luddite propoganda piece though. Unfortunately, as soon as you look at the facts, it falls flat on its face.
"Spotify pays out 70% of its revenues to music rightsholders, and has said that it expects those payments to exceed $500m (£310m) in 2013. How much of that money gets passed on to musicians depends on the terms of their contracts with labels."
As any reasonably minded person would agree, said contracts are utter sheeeeet.
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation