09-29-2005, 03:27 PM | #201 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
Your interpretation is nonsensical. This goes way beyond a 'reach.' |
|
09-29-2005, 03:32 PM | #202 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-29-2005, 03:33 PM | #203 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
09-29-2005, 03:34 PM | #204 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Okay, gang. This is not a completely empty argument. You can disagree, and not disparage. There is hope for us yet.
Quote:
I see your point, Mr. B. For those who have missed this, Mr. B is saying that the nature of music in a modern context makes it a product different than others -- that it has become so easy to produce and distribute that there no longer needs to be any meaningful profit-driven protections for it to be created. (And that there are still secondary profits to be gained by those who produce music of sufficient quality) This argument is not wholly without merit, I don't believe. I happen to disagree with it, as I think it tends to understate the actual investment of time, effort, and commitment to the craft necessary to make music of the quality and quantity that we, the consumers of music, want. The ability to (possibly) sell recordings is an inducement for many talented people to get into and stay in the business -- talented people who need time to create their works, equipment upon which to play and record, and expertise with which to hone the recordings. All these, currenly, depend on a chain that is driven (whether you like it or not) by the market -- and the market is, in large part, a creation of intellectual property protections. Yes, the ultimate purpose of these laws is to spur the creation of these works (to thereby benefit society), and the profit center of that system does this, by most accounts, rather well. Your argument that music is special and has somehow transcended the profit motive is specious, I think, as it ignores the real costs and trade-offs involved in the industry. Sure, there would be people who would still create and distribute music if there were no way to sell it. There's a guy who made the "We Like The Moon" video and song in his basement, and the commercial deal with QUizno's was a long way away from his mind, right? But the point is that there would have to be a diminishing - probably a very substantial diminshing -- of the quantity and quality of the works that would then be created. Some of those creative people would just have to keep working at Kroger's, rather than write songs full time... the guy with a recording studio wouldn't get as many paying clients, since there just wouldn't be as much money at the end of the process for people who decide to do this stuff. It's a system of incentive -- even if the costs and difficulties are less than they once were, people would have to react. And I still think the strongest argument is that eliminating the ability to see recorded music is tantamount to gutting the industry of its most vital constituents. It's not that I quarrel with your logic, I just dispute one of your premises. |
|
09-29-2005, 03:35 PM | #205 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
That is actually a philosophically reasonable point of view. How do you ensure the progress of the useful arts? Make sure those that are good at it get paid enough to keep doing it. |
|
09-29-2005, 03:37 PM | #206 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
Well said. |
|
09-29-2005, 03:44 PM | #207 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bay Area
|
Quote:
Quote:
Most scientific advances and useful arts are developed by people who dedicate their lives to their work. Protecting their rights gives them a way to support themselves while granting consumers access to their work. |
||
09-29-2005, 04:02 PM | #208 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
|
MrBig, your entire argument (even if we accept all the premises) is based on the assumption that music is easy to create and produce, and other art forms like movies and novels are not. I just don't buy this. I don't buy that it's easy to write a good song, or perform one, and I don't buy that it's easy to create a high-quality recording of one.
Your argument for the good of the consumer assumes that unlike other forms of expression, the quality of music would remain the same if there was no profit motive. I think you're wrong there, and I think it feels like way too much like a happy coincidence that the only art form you believe is easy enough to create that we're justified in taking it is also the one that just happens to already be easy to steal.
__________________
Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis |
09-29-2005, 04:04 PM | #209 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Quote:
Certainly more efficient than mine, and probably more effective. |
|
09-29-2005, 04:48 PM | #210 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
Question Is the class of paid musicians (writers, performers, producers) better at making music than the class of amateur musicians? I don't see how you can argue that it isn't - and if it isn't, then Mr. Big's argument fails. |
|
09-29-2005, 08:25 PM | #211 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
|
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
__________________
Marge: The plant called. They said if you don't come in tommorow, don't bother coming in Monday, either. Homer: Who-hoo! Four day weekend!! Last edited by HomerJSimpson : 09-29-2005 at 08:25 PM. |
09-29-2005, 08:39 PM | #212 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
I agree with Mr. B that IP law exists to promote the advance of science and the arts. It does so by providing economic incentives for the creation of artistic works. Take away the economic incentives, you have sabotaged purpose of IP laws, haven't you? The argument you're making that it's now cheaper and easier to duplicate music, so it should be free is ridiculous. That has NOTHING to do with the creative process, nor does it have anything to do with why the creators should retain their rights to decide how and when to distribute their work.
|
09-29-2005, 08:40 PM | #213 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: sans pants
|
When I grrow up I want to be like Maple Leafs.
__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!! I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com |
09-29-2005, 10:15 PM | #214 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
09-29-2005, 10:38 PM | #215 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I actually think that music choice will go up. The recording industry will not be manufacturing pop bands anymore, and it will be easier to get into the game without having to get in with the RIAA. |
||
09-29-2005, 10:56 PM | #216 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
If you think that benefits to the consumer are the only thing that matters in a transaction, you don't know a thing about economics, Mr. B. The party supplying the good or service also needs to benefit, or it won't have any incentive to produce the good or service, and there will be no transaction. Your "business" model would drive the arts right into the toilet. It's hard enough for most people to make a living in the arts as it is, but without copyright protection and the right to control distribution, it would be impossible. If your business model was such a great things, why do we see people like Fred Eaglesmith and Steve Wynn, who have cult followings but no recording contract, releasing albums on their labels instead of just giving everything away for free? I'll tell you why - that model doesn't work. The CD sales at concerts are part of their income stream.
|
09-29-2005, 11:14 PM | #217 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
09-29-2005, 11:29 PM | #218 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
Yes, but there's no obvious benefit to the artists that I can see from abandoning their copyright protections. I'm a writer, and belong to a writer's forum, and I'll tell you this - writers would never accept the kind of business model you're advocating for the music industry, and with good reason. There's no reason musicians, should, either. If they want to give music away as a marketing strategy, that's one thing. But never, ever, ever, should a third party who has not purchased the right to do so from the artist be legally permitted to set up an alternative distribution channel that the artist did not approve. Copyright is exactly what the name says it is - the right to make copies. No one but the copyright holder and people specifically authorized by the copyright holder have any right to make and distribute copies to anyone else. That's the law, that's what the authors of the Constitution intended, and that's how it should be. If you want free music, there are places on the internet where some artists have permitted concert recordings to be archived and downloaded. Download those, not the stuff they are selling and do not intend to be available free.
|
09-29-2005, 11:57 PM | #219 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-30-2005, 12:07 AM | #220 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
Quote:
The business models are very similar, and translate very well between the two. Both are paid royalties based on sales. Both have opportunities to make additional income from personal appearance (concerts for musicians, speaking appearances and teaching workshops for writers). The main difference between the models is that, for musicians, the publishing channel (record companies) are a lot more abusive and corrupt with respect to the rights they insist on buying. Quote:
The consumer benefits by having a greater diversity and quality of music to choose from because musicians have the economic opportunity to actually make a living at their craft if they're good enough. That is EXACTLY the rationale the authors of the Constitution were using when they crafted the clause in the first place. I'm astonished that you so willfully refuse to acknowledge that directly, when you have on several occasions admitted it indirectly. |
||
09-30-2005, 12:25 AM | #221 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) There are still vast income streams available for musicians besides record sales (and there would still be record sales) 2) The social incentives of being a 'rock star' would still be in place 3) Lessening the RIAA's role removes a major roadblock to bands Clearly, Britney Spears, the Rolling Stones, etc, would not be waiting on tables tomorrow if "The Bigglesworth Law" went into effect today. Certainly, musicians on the margins could be hurt, and may not be able to make a living off music anymore. That doesn't mean they will stop making music though. Like you say, writing is in some way similar, in the fact that many, many people write for hours on end for free. Similarly, there will still be people that play music for free, and get their music out there. The top bands will still be making tons of cash through concerts, endorsements, etc, so people will still be looking for the next big thing. |
||
09-30-2005, 12:42 AM | #222 | ||
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think you know you're wrong there. I can hardly believe you said it with a straight face. Will music completely cease? No. But ... I mean, did you see 8 Mile? Would Eminem have pursued his art with the same zeal if it hadn't also been his ticket out of hell? Of course not, he would have become a stockbroker. |
||
09-30-2005, 01:18 AM | #223 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by MrBigglesworth : 09-30-2005 at 01:19 AM. |
||
09-30-2005, 06:35 AM | #224 | ||
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Quote:
Umm.. so.. where in that line does it say "music should not be protected but other forms of art should be because that is what is good for art"? YOU are making a HUGE jump in logic here... YOU are making MAJOR assumptions that "free music" "promotes progress of science and the useful arts". YOU are saying that what is "good" for "art" is "good" for the "consumer". This line from the consititution states NONE of this. You have argued that it is not possible to argue that free music is not "good" for the consumer. Well duh, you could say anything made free is "good for the consumer" and say there's no argueing it. I have yet to see an argument that says that free music is good for the ARTS. And you dismissed several of my arguments above WAY to easy. You in your ivory tower have WAY overestimated the accessability to computers and the internet. You make a HUGE jump in logic about what forms of art people will be willing to make for no money. There is this assumption and jump in your head that writing a novel is insane to do for no money but people will make music? That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I would argue that writing is more likely to happen for free than music is. You say "it doesn't take any time to write a song". How many good songs have you written? How do you know? What about the time to perfect it? What about the time for your band mates to perfect it? Your arguments are just absolute CRAP meant to justify your illegal activities.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
||
09-30-2005, 06:43 AM | #225 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
So... you guys can ignore my rant because Maple Leafs and QS said it much better and with much less emotion...
I just think Mr. B is making some major jumps in logic and oversimplifying what creators of music will do when there is no chance to make money from sales of music. The way big concerts happen is on the heals of major sales in records for instance.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
09-30-2005, 07:25 AM | #226 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cary, NC, USA
|
MrB -
I do see your point as it applies to large-scale acts. But let's back up a bit and talk about the up-and-comers; and by this I don't mean the new guys who are making it on the radio. I'm talking about the bands that are playing on Friday/Saturday nights at Eddie's Attic, Jammin' Java, or any of the other thousands of coffee houses/smallish music areas in the world. These groups tour, charge some money for their concerts, and sell CDs. Some of these groups are very, very good; and some of them will break out into the rock-star motif and make that kind of money. But if their music is free for distribution, that takes away what at this point is the only reliable moneymaker for these groups. Sure, Jennifer Nettles makes a good chunk of money from concerts while touring now with Sugarland. But without the CD sales, could she have kept (or started!) touring with Soul Miner's Daughter and the Jennifer Nettles Band? There's a large number of groups that have the potential - The Alternate Routes is one I like, Judd and Maggie one my wife does - but neither have that critical mass. Neither at this point could survive as a band without the income from CD sales. So while the point may apply for the top-level acts, it becomes a serious barrier to entry for the low- to mid- level acts. Producing and creating music, despite any advances in technology is not free. Touring is not necessarily a money-maker. |
09-30-2005, 07:41 AM | #227 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Celeval made my argument much better than I did.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
09-30-2005, 01:41 PM | #228 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
No doubt about it, some may not be able to get by. But that will happen more often than not to the 'worst' of those musicians. And the loss of those musicians will be more than outweighed by the good of the free available music. It would also be offset by the increase in 'garage bands', bands that don't tour but will put out a good song or two, that will be able to get their song 'out there' easier because of the increase in technology due to the free, legal file trading. |
|
09-30-2005, 01:44 PM | #229 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: sans pants
|
The Bigglesworth Law kicks serious ass for affluent consumers.
Other folks...not so much.
__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!! I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com |
09-30-2005, 01:53 PM | #230 | |||||||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
09-30-2005, 01:57 PM | #231 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
09-30-2005, 03:31 PM | #232 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
|
Quote:
__________________
Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis Last edited by Maple Leafs : 09-30-2005 at 03:32 PM. |
|
09-30-2005, 08:59 PM | #233 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
Quote:
And you're dead wrong. And you want to know why you're wrong? Because there would be nobody left to invest money on development and promotion of the bands. Bands, when they're starting out, don't have the money to do that themselves, unless one of the members comes from a wealthy family. Your model might be OK for bands that are already big, but few new bands would ever have the opportunity to get big again. The p2p network on the Internet would just be a huge, completely disorganized collection of stuff of most people didn't even know existed. And if they did know it existed, the content would be so unreliably variable in quality that sorting through it wouldn't be worth the effort. It wouldn't be worth the hassle to radio stations, either, and there's a very good chance that the one income-producing channel that served as a promotional opportunity for bands would find other things to program instead. By the way, I've rethought your contention that the Founding Fathers granted IP rights primarily to benefit consumers, and I don't agree with that anymore, either. I believe they granted IP rights to give incentives for the technological and cultural growth of the nation as a whole. I'll tell you something that I know for sure. If your model was such a great economic model for artists, some cult artist putting out music on his or her own label would already be giving away their entire catalog for free on their website. I don't see anyone doing it. I see some of them giving away unreleased freebies, or putting a song or two for free download on their websites, or letting people post bootlegs of their concerts on places like Live Music Archive. But that's it. |
|
09-30-2005, 09:02 PM | #234 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
game, set, match |
|
09-30-2005, 09:05 PM | #235 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cary, NC, USA
|
Quote:
I disagree. Free music isn't illegal now - what's to stop the garage bands from putting out music for free now to get out there? There isn't anything - so I don't see where this increase comes from. |
|
09-30-2005, 11:10 PM | #236 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-30-2005, 11:12 PM | #237 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
09-30-2005, 11:20 PM | #238 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cary, NC, USA
|
Quote:
Well, yeah, given that there are more p2p networks and more songs then there were 5 or 10 years ago. |
|
10-01-2005, 12:51 AM | #239 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
10-01-2005, 10:34 AM | #240 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
The more songs are not the result of the distribution technology, but other technology in making songs. It's a non-sequitor to say there are more *quality* songs because of P2P, tho ("because I had cereal this morning, Kansas will beat Texas Tech"). SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
10-01-2005, 10:47 AM | #241 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
Here's the bottom line - people who create new works should have a fundamental, exclusive, absolute right to market their works as they see fit. The consumer has no right at all, and should have not any right at all, to free stuff that interferes with the creators' rights to decide how those works are distributed. And the fact that technology makes copyright infringement easier does not change the fact that it is still copyright infringement.
I disagree with the RIAA's tactics, and I hate the big record companies. If they were book publishers, everyone in the professional writing business would consider them scammers who should be shamed out of business. But the fact remains that essentially what you are arguing is a certain narrow class of people should not have the right to benefit financially from their creative works. And when you get called on it, you'll say it's a better system for the creators in one post, and when someone criticizes you for that, you'll admit that in a backhanded indirect way that it's not better and you don't actually give a shit about the artists. You're about your own selfish desire to not have to pay for what you want. Well, guess what - we all like to get free stuff. But we're not entitled to free stuff, and we're especially not entitled to free stuff belonging to someone else who doesn't want to give it away for free. Last edited by clintl : 10-01-2005 at 12:20 PM. |
10-01-2005, 05:03 PM | #242 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
10-01-2005, 05:12 PM | #243 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
98% of music these days is shit anyways. And what isn't shit i have no problem paying for. I think the last CD I bought was Green Day, and the last before that was the latest Counting Crows disc. Bottom line...I'm not buying a lot of CD's these days, because 98-99% of stuff isn't even worth LISTENING to, let alone paying for. so i don't even download anything anymore, cuz there's nothing i'm interested in that i don't already have.
|
10-01-2005, 05:31 PM | #244 | |||||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
10-01-2005, 06:02 PM | #245 | ||||||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
Quote:
First, don't compare academic research to commercial arts. The conventions for disseminating information and the methods of compensation are completely different models. Second, what does the act of reading have to do with the actual copyright protections on a report someone wrote? Absolutely nothing. Quote:
Not really. It's mostly because classical music doesn't sell as well, so the record companies can't charge the same price for it. If they could, rest assured the record companies would. And, in fact, the artists DO get royalties for the performance, which is protected under copyright. It's just the compositions themselves that have expired copyrights, which just means the composers don't get royalties. Quote:
Where are you getting free aspirin? I sure don't know any place around here to get it. Yes, the patents have expired. But until the patents expired, those companies had the exclusive right to make and/or license the drugs. And they can still profit from making them after the patents expire. The copyrights you have so lustfully wish to infringe have not expired. So we're not talking about aspirin. Quote:
So it's OK to take away a source of income from people (for the vast majority) who don't make much money at it, anyway, as long as you leave them other ways to make money that already exist. How's a 25% or a 50% pay cut sound to you for doing the same work? Quote:
What's your occupation? What if a law was passed that took away your right to be paid for your work? That's what you're advocating. Quote:
Good. I'm glad you're admitting it openly, so that we can recognize you as an enemy of creative artists everywhere. Last edited by clintl : 10-01-2005 at 06:05 PM. |
||||||
10-01-2005, 06:21 PM | #246 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
|
Quote:
__________________
Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis |
|
10-01-2005, 07:13 PM | #247 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cary, NC, USA
|
Quote:
And they still depend on the CD income to make it big. So, uh, I don't see how free music will change that in the slightest. |
|
10-01-2005, 08:29 PM | #248 | |||||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
10-01-2005, 08:42 PM | #249 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
10-01-2005, 08:50 PM | #250 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Another interesting note from the paper, of the top 35 highest earning musicians in 2002, the average made $12.7 million in live performances and $1.7 million in record sales. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|