|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
Yeah but if I were Quatertone #2, I'd say,
"But Yubee, yeah this youtube thing is great, but we should also at the same time be looking for official management, because they can use their resources to get us on radio, TV, and in professional recording studios.
AND even if we want to keep the thing viral, we could still do that too... but if you really believe in your dream of becoming a musician, let's sign with somebody!
I mean, shit, record labels arn't marshmallows and candy. I know they're fucking up a lot of things. I just still believe they serve a necessary service - for now - in the distribution system.
|
you'll never be a quartertone honesttea... not at this rate... we're quartertones, of course we're looking for management. but a lot of young, talented musicians don't even know where to begin with this kind of thing, and what better way to get off the ground than filesharing? of course nobody decides to "keep the thing viral", the #1 goal of all musicians ever is to sell out and get rich, i'm just saying filesharing via the internet has become an extremely viable step towards success in today's industry, so it's kind of ridiculous how starparty can't imagine it ever working.
and starparty, ok radiohead and NIN, OK BAD EXAMPLES? I CAN ACCEPT THAT OK? but are you seriously asking me to tell you artists who are NOT indie that use filesharing as a method of distribution? in other words, you want me to tell you some non-independent artists that don't have a label? isn't that kind of an oxymoron? regardless, i don't have a big list of people who use the filesharing method ready for some shmuck who asks for it, and i'm not about to go looking for it. if you really cared about learning about that method of promotion, you'd use google. instead, you only want to win an internet argument. open up ya mind bra!
|
On October 06 2008 21:22 Starparty wrote:
And ive decided that youre just a complete moron. ps that hurts my feelings!!
|
i apologize for that actually, i get carried away easily. I refer to honestteas latest posts since they express my standing in the argument, but in a more politically correct way.
Edit: And not to mention that the post i was originally responding too was refering to the unneccesity of record labels today, something my answer tried to misprove in a rather provocative way. As for taking that apart and letting the argument drift off, you are responsible. Dont accuse me of simply trying to win an argument rather than opening my eyes, when you are the narrowminded poster originally.
|
=] thanks! that is extremely courteous of you
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
We get along so well - we should start a band!
CAPTURE SOME OF THIS LIGHTNING AND PUT IT IN A BOTTLE TO SELL!
|
You write some lyrics, yubee sing them and ill make a song. Then we can let VIB fileshare it on piratebay so we can flame him some more for this thread 
|
OMG I must suck at writing, I can't get anyone to understand what I'm saying  You guys take what I say and completely derail into something else that is totally irrelevant and just totally misses the point! Saying that I don't know what I am talking about because piracy has nothing to do with copyright and the creative commons is also copyright means you understood 0% (ZERO) of what I was trying to say and I wrote it all for nothing >< Is my english that bad?
This is exactly as if I said "hey guys there are healthy alternatives to hamburger sandwich, you could put soy meat on the sandwich instead" and then someone counters with "oh but soy meat sandwich is also a sandwich, see you don't even know your own arguments!! You're pointing the gun at yourself!" and someone else says "but soy meat is an exception, the one and only exception on planet earth! You cannot back this up with 10 other examples!"... WTF??? What do I do to make you guys comprehend?
Maybe we're just bumping into linguistics here? The term "intellectual property" is a broad one, I have been using this to refer to many different things, maybe this is the root of all confusion, from wikipidia:
+ Show Spoiler +"Intellectual property rights are a bundle of exclusive rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial. The former is covered by copyright laws" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property"Critics of the term "intellectual property" argue that the increased use of this terminology coincided with a more general shift away from thinking about things like copyright and patent law as specific legal instruments designed to promote the common good and towards a conception of ideas as inviolable property granted by natural law.[1] The terminological shift coincides with the usage of pejorative terms for copyright infringement such as "piracy" and "theft"." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_intellectual_property
I only directed you to free-culture.cc to show you how alternatives to IP exists and artists which do not make money off copyright exists! Creative commons license is a copyright itself because that is the tools they have at their disposal to fight the war. That is totally irrelevant and besides my point.
About the whole "quote me 10 successful examples outside copyright/IP/intellectual monopoly/wtf you wanna call it":
- First of all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic_monkeys - The Artic Monkeys. This is the biggest valid example I know personally. They went from 0% mainstream to 1st on billboard in one week. This was only, and absolutely only due to file-sharing, "Piracy!!" and their will to distribute their work online. There are tons of others going the same route and trying the same thing, I won't give you nine other examples because I have very little knowledge of music myself. But if you want: google, they're right there waiting for you to find them. If you're accepting software examples: Google and Ubunto are top 2 (among many others) who are selling what I have been preaching since post one: SERVICES instead of intellectual property (software). WoW is game making much bigger bucks off service instead of software. I would even like to cite Wikipidia!! because they're alive and kicking exclusively due to donations (resembles Mozart being patronized before copyright even existed anyone?).
- Second of all: "oh but those are either hobbyists who make no money or either they don't make as much money as copyrighted creators therefore do not qualify as success". Understand this: any art will always need audience to succeed regardless of what format to make money they choose. Big audience = mainstream. Today, mainstream = copyrighted IP material. This is why Britney Spears is richer than Mr. random guy trying to make money off adds in his personal blog where he upload his music creations. The thousands of people buying her album are just a consequence of the system, HonestTea. But when the day comes that record companies and copyright disappears (you guys do agree this is inevitable right?). Then IP material won't be mainstream anymore (it won't exist!) now will it? What is gonna be mainstream then? Mr. random guy uploading his (quality) personal stuff in his own blog is what is gonna be mainstream. If he is good enough, he will be the one making the big bucks. (not as big as Madonna ever has, which is why I say economic/social imbalance is one of the downsides of IP, but will still make more than enough to live with it). What a wonderful world to picture in our minds, isn't it? ^^
|
i dont think the record companies will dissapear tbh. They fullfill a service that most single artists cant do for themselves - promote. They will naturally and hopefully change their appearances because as mentioned forward and back they are a bit oldfashion today. But i dont see why they should dissapear as long as they fullfill a service that nothing else do. They work like gate keepers, and those would be usefull even if the magical inturwebz was the only source of music we had.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the billboard charts are calculated by album sales. So clearly people were buying the arctic monkeys, not only pirating it?
I would even like to cite Wikipidia!! - Don't let your teacher catch you doing that =P. Seriously though, this, like the GNU, is the exception not the rule. And its not a good exception either. You CANNOT use wikipedia as a source for anything because of its very model.
Today, mainstream = copyrighted IP material. This is why Britney Spears is richer than Mr. random guy trying to make money off adds in his personal blog where he upload his music creations
Sorry, no. You are suggesting that Britney Spears is mainstream because she is mainstream and thus rich, kind of circular argument don't you think. The copyright had nothing to do with her level of fame, people bought her stuff because they wanted to, for better or for worse. Just because you think Britney Spears is pure shit (I wouldn't disagree, but thats hardly the point), your views are hardly relevant, because a LARGE majority of people payed alot of money for it.
This idea of patronage you have is equally as, sorry, silly. This is again the free rider principle that i mentioned with respect to why patents were invented in the first place. Why become a patron when you could wait for someone else to and enjoy the benefits at no cost. Thus noone becomes the patron and noone makes any money. Artist can't afford to live, can't make music, everyone suffers. Thus patronage model doesn't work. Certainly this isn't a perfect model, because it assumes the free rider principle is 100% correct when this clearly isn't the case - radiohead in rainbows as an example of why. However for the LARGE majority of cases this is pretty correct, very clever economists tell us so.
Google has an interesting business model, but using them as an example is laughably incorrect. How did google become popular, PAGERANK. Why, because it kicked the crap out of other search algorithms. Why didn't other, more popular engines at the time, use it: OMFG PATENTS! Who would have thought - intellectual property at work, amazing. Yes google now offer vast services for free such as maps, search, and free software like chrome etc, but they do this because it keeps users on the google search engine, which keeps them looking at their ads, which makes them loads of money. This is the only NON-closed model that works for non-excludable goods, ie ad supported, and it has been used effectively alot. See commercial radio, tv, etc. But that's not to say its the best model in all situations. It would be very difficult for single player games to fund themselves solely on ad revenue. And lastly, its VERY hard to find sponsors and ads unless you are already big and well known, so its not a very viable model for alot of smaller creators.
Likewise MMOs can offer the game for free (they generally don't) and charge for the service of the subscription because in this case it actually is an excludable good. If you don't pay, you can't play on their server. That doesn't work for music, you don't pay per listen, or single player games. Likewise with music any number of people can listen once it has been purchased once, whereas with WoW its pretty much limited to the one player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
