Spot wrote:
"And stealing, and screaming at the industry, only serves to make for less and less ear time from the labels. Which means less development money. Which means less new music. Which means less outlet for that hardworking garage band."

Spot, no doubt you have more of an inside view than I will ever have. And your cred. is impressive. From your point of view I can see your point. My point is that I believe the music industry is transitioning to a decentralized mode of distribution. I believe that hardworking garage bands will have more outlet opportuinties in this model. Right now a band who signs with a major gets a 1 album deal to succeed. Promotion of these "new" artists are spotty and in short supply and I dare say dependant not only on their music but on their sex appeal. If the band is lucky they recorded a fine album on their own and the label will release that (saving a negative draw for the band right off the bat). If not and the album doesn't sell 500,000 copies or so they (the band)are in the whole. Any opportunity for the band to take that album elsewhere is now up to the lawyers. In some ways I see this cycle as setting up a "new" band for failure. The result of all of this is unfocused publishing of alot of rubbish. If a band can record their own release on their own in Vegas/Sonar/Cubase/Logic (take your pick) and they can distribute to listeners on their own over the Internet. Why then, should major label marketing practices be viewed as necessary. Would a band who went through the grind I mentioned above really net more money than distributing it themselves?

Music has to be heard to be sold. The majors are too scared to let music be heard on the internet (due to copyright issues) and so I see the promotional desparity between big established acts and new "unknown" ones growing. Interest in major label releases will wane, as independent distribution flourishes.

It's a scary proposition. If this happens, your livelyhood is at risk. Personally, I think if the majors became more inclusive in their marketing and became more of a broker than a "sugar daddy", I think they would thrive. Consumers need to be shown what's cool. But right now a 37 year old is being told that Justin Timberlake is cool. Hello, I'm not a teenager. The majors have the ability now to target markets like never before and they are refusing. Why? because they don't want to loose any part of their control they have over the industry.

When I download a song(s) it's to hear something I haven't heard before. If I really like it I buy it from Amazon. If not I save my money. I am now an informed consumer. I also download old songs that I have purchased in the past that I have lost or have been destroyed by my 2 year old daughter. I view that as my right. The fact that the RIAA has branded this valuable form of promotion as piracy is short sighted and really sad because this topic is now polarized and it will not end up as a "win/win".

I may be wrong in some of the details I have written about but I do believe I am not off-based. Spot, I respect what you contribute here and I look forward to purchasing your book. Keep up the good work.

jack

I don't think anybody is understanding anybody in this thread anymore.
Before I leave, I'd like to make one thing as clear as posible, and through as basic a way as I can think of, so it doesn't get misinterpreted.
My personal thoughts on this matter:

People responsible for putting out music getting paid for their effort and time: GOOD
Piracy: BAD

Later.

The record companies set their prices based on production costs and their desired profits (and they have every right to make a profit with their product). If you feel you're getting screwed, fine, but that doesn't justify stealing. Save your pennies or go without -- you have no "right" to any product, no matter how badly you want it.

When enough customers stop buying, prices will come down. But stealing, and advocating it, is certainly not going to encourage any company to lower their prices, in fact, it just strengthens the justification of their position.

soap box

I asked the same question some time ago and somebody bit my head off and gave that stuff about wm is uperior etc, divx for pirates etc. While I respect MS, I also know they definitely are involved in unfair business practices. I certainly do not believe and there is no evidence to support they have the best product out there. Software has certain unique features and because of the dominance intellectual content has certainly spawned a unique open software model.

(It does not mean you cannot make money on software, but rather you make on services - that is what is precisely evolving now . That is why even companies like MS will not be able to money on software, they will make money if they are able to put together a working system).

In this model the most superior software will be in the open not in some properiatary format like MS wants to lock you in. You are already seeing examples of this feature in software starting from LAPACK, LINUX, OCTAVE, pearl, python, FFTW on and on. In fact the more complex the piece of software , the more likely it will be in the open domain.

I am not an expert on copyright and piracy. But "open" does not mean piracy and individuals and companies have to find/invent new models to work within this new environment.


Some total of that is that I suspect that if MS views something as competitive they are quite capable of twisting/breaking the arms of companies like SOFO. All this religious like debates only increases my suspicion

Sorry for the rambling

>>No, its not too futuristic, it's too Socialistic/Communistic.

Haven't we yet learned from our elementry school books that socialism not only cannot work, it is a horrible way of life. Equal reward for unequal effort is not what I call eutopia. -Shon>>

Don't you realize that "equal reward for unequal effort is actually capitalism?" If Mel Gibson is given 20 million dollars to do the same amount of work on film that I get paid $2000 for, where is the equality in that? Forget popularity, for that has nothing to do with work. A pretty face is not necessarily worked for, yet it's popularity could make one rich. The work ethic is horribly distorted in capitalism.

Anyway, I'm not talking about Socialism or Communism per se, as it has been implemented in the past. If you look at Star Trek, they have a system that allows for everyone to have access to resources for food, shelter, etc. They do not care one bit who you are or what you do. It is not a system that says you only deserve what you work for. It is one that says you are alive, therefore you deserve whatever the planet has to offer you. And, it satisfies everyone. People that actually do some kind of work, could care less that what they do benefits someone who simply wants to sit in a park all day and eat candy. That isn't what matters. The system is designed to take care of everyone that breathes.

Technology is what brought that about on Star Trek. It is where we are headed, provided we don't destroy ourselves first.

Answer this question:
How can we (more or less) guarantee that everyone can eat good, tasty, nutritious food, without any one person having to give up something for others to eat?

The answer to that question also solves the problems of access to any resource available on the planet, and anything we can make from those resources.

Star Trek has solved that problem for the most part, and it DOESN'T include capitalism. Our present day scientists are currently working on those same technologies, AND have made recent small but significant achievements.

The internet is an example of the direction technology will take us. It is the backbone or precursor of how the Star Trek system probably originated. There comes a point where so many people are contributing to the sustanance (spelling?) of the system that no one person or small group of people own it any longer. The internet is about the most socialistic thing we have today. And, the only thing threatening all of the positivity of it, is trying to regulate it, trying to own it, trying to buy and sell it - it is for the people and by the people at this point. It is a great example of the people doing what they need to do for each other, freely. When things go wrong with the net, there are thousands of people contributing to the solution, usually for no other reason than to keep it all going. And it is working.

"The internet is an example of the direction technology will take us. It is the backbone or precursor of how the Star Trek system probably originated."

LOL!!
Please tell me William Shatner isn't going to be there!

LOL!
I hope not. He's a cool guy and all (Mr. Priceline) but...

Ummm............

....you do realise that Star Trek is a Sci-Fi show.

Sci-Fi is short for science fiction.

Fiction means not real.

The reason your system works in Star Trek is because the scripts written for the show say it works. Don't you find it ironic that Star Trek is actually a multi-million (if not billion) dollar industry? I just watched the movie "Solaris" and they have this cool system where if someone close to you dies, they can come back to you in physical form. Can't wait for that to happen!

To bring this back to the main debate...I agree that the Music Industry, due mainly to the Internet, will have to develop some kind of updated business model in order to survive. But that doesn't change the fact that downloading copyright protected music is illegal. Sure you may never get caught. But you are, according to the current laws, stealing. Are you evil? No? But whether you like to hear it or not, you are stealing. If you think the law is wrong, then work to change it. The question is,

If you know that you will never get caught, do you care about breaking the law?

My answer is actually one of my favorite quotes:

"Character is defined by what we do when nobody is looking."


Regards, -Shon

If Mel Gibson is given 20 million dollars to do the same amount of work on film that I get paid $2000 for, where is the equality in that?

He puts people in seats, you don't; nor do I, but I'm not complaining about what I get paid as an actor; I'm working harder to make myself more valuable to the producers I work for.

I find it disappointing that those who refuse to raise their own standards insist that the rest of us lower ours.... One of the smartest guys I ever worked for told me, "Mediocrity breeds contempt." Boy was he right.

[I find it disappointing that those who refuse to raise their own standards insist that the rest of us lower ours.... One of the smartest guys I ever worked for told me, "Mediocrity breeds contempt." Boy was he right.]



Amen to that!

>>>....you do realise that Star Trek is a Sci-Fi show. Sci-Fi is short for science fiction. Fiction means not real.

good sci-fi is always more than it appears. it provides possible answers to hard questions like, what would the world be like if we had such and such technology and implemented it in an ideal way? "Star Trek" or "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley are projections of two possibilities. sci-fi writers look at current technology and the direction it is moving, combine it with the direction of our civilization and come up with a possible future scenario. it was the sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke who first dreamed up the idea of using satellites to link the entire world in a communication network.

talking about new ideas and the effects they might have in the future is always fiction. that's what we are doing here. projecting possible scenarios based on new technology. that's science fiction.

just one more thing... to the person touting their elementary school education, don't believe everything you read in your elementary school "social studies" text book. coming away from public school with an aversion to any system other than the American (or insert your country here) one was not an accident and has little to do with history. try reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me"- Dr. James W. Loewen which scrutinizes 12 of the most popular "history" text books used in public schools.

>>I find it disappointing that those who refuse to raise their own standards insist that the rest of us lower ours.... One of the smartest guys I ever worked for told me, "Mediocrity breeds contempt." Boy was he right.>>

Here we go again, being insulting rather than helpful. Anyway, you missed my point. I SPECIFICALLY said that popularity has NOTHING to do with the physical amount of work a person does for the pay they receive. Please make your arguments around what was actually said. Do you agree or disagree, that Mel's 20 million dollar salary is way more than most everyone in his field that do the same amount of physical work?

My suggestion was to keep the INITIAL pay at a point where it is based on amount of work = amount of pay. Extra money comes in other forms, after it is actually earned, i.e. tickets sold, etc. In this case the artists shares in profits made. This way we can relatively clearly separate a person's actual work value from their popularity value. At the very least, thsi would avoid people being overpaid by MILLIONS of dollars and not producing the goods.

And, regarding the Star Trek issue,
>>>....you do realise that Star Trek is a Sci-Fi show. Sci-Fi is short for science fiction. Fiction means not real.>>

To Sr_C:
You must be able to correctly answer the question I posed in order to realize the very realistic potential I refer to. And there are many, many things that exist today that were created as fiction and speculation many decades ago. Wrist watch and flat screen TVs, microwave ovens, space travel, to name a few. Not all are exactly as predicted, but the point is that an idea posed so long ago quite obviously can be paralled to things that exist today, often times we have gone beyond the original idea itself. It seems that most things we can conceive, we can achieve, if we pursue them long enough and with enough vigor.

Hm... Personally I'm a bit dissappointed that this discussion has turned into a star trek/socialism debate. Cause I think that the system I roughly described could really work - in some form or another...

I'm actually trying to decise whether or not I should make a "sample application" to try and explain my idea better :p

-P-

Panic:
You should definitely do that. Personally, I got very single-mindedly involved in my own version of things. I'd love to see a model of your concept.

Do you agree or disagree, that Mel's 20 million dollar salary is way more than most everyone in his field that do the same amount of physical work?

No, I do not agree because your point is not relevant -- and I'm a professional actor. While our job often involves something physical, it is ART and that is what we are paid for; our interpretation of a script. It's why those of us that aren't famous [and even some that are] get auditioned; if it was just manual labor, you could hire anyone. It's not labor, it's art. Mel Gibson puts people in seats which means profits for the studios and producers that employ him. He gets what he gets because he is worth it and has demonstrated that time and time again.

Johnny,

I too am an artist whose work is utilized within the industry. What I'm getting at is that the industry wastes tons of money paying high salaries to artists that don't always recoup.

My suggestion is to have the contracts set up so that upfront you are paid a reasonable salary for the labor. If it is PROVEN (not speculated) that your ART sells tickets THEN you get extra, based on the ACTUAL profits. I think they call it a back-end deal. I just think that back-end deals should be the way it's done period, for all actors. That way, if I am a new actor and my film is a hit, I share in the profits from it.

The way it is done now, if 10 (great, hot) actors were paid 10 million upfront for their current film, and only 2 of those films were profitable, the industry just wasted 80 million on a guess. All I'm saying is why pay someone in advance for work (in this case profits) they haven't really earned yet? I don't see the street worker getting paid a year's salary in advance hoping he will do a good job over the next 365 days, even though he has PROVEN how loyal and good he's been for the last 5 years. But, he might be eligible for a bonus if his company profits.

Share the wealth after it really exists. Doing it this way won't change the commodity value of good sought-after actors. What it will do is make them more picky about the roles they choose. Unless they KNOW they alone will cause a film to be a hit, they will prefer to be on a project that has the potential to be a hit anyway, with or without them.

I hesitate to wade into this morass. I created a similar furor over at 2cpu.com when I suggested that certain websites were here primarily to promote piracy of other people's creative efforts. No matter how you slice it, it's theft.