http://vimeo.com/31100268
This is political in nature but please watch the video and do some digging, it's a little scary.
Protect IP
Re: Protect IP
Let's be honest, any law that makes Beiber a criminal has to be a good one.
Grisbault, Twice-Made.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
Re: Protect IP
All jokes aside, it also makes the parrot singing to Michael Jackson a criminal and the very large amounts of kitten videos with some random pop song in the background illegal.
The kittens, someone think of the kittens!
The kittens, someone think of the kittens!
Re: Protect IP
Mah babies!Thalevia wrote:The kittens, someone think of the kittens!
Yemana sees someone standing in front of a flag and be like RAWR MOTHERFUCKER!!!!
-
Malebrignon
- Lost
- Posts: 480
- Location: Hellinois
Re: Protect IP
Wow.
Smart musicians don't support this kind of thing. There's so little money made from recordings by the musicians themselves that most of us could care less about not getting a royalty check from some pajama-person's crappy youtube video. As of 2 years ago, the band U2 had one of the best major-label record deals in the country and they make about $1.25 off of every complete album they sell. Then they go make 200 grand in profits for playing a one-night show in NYC. My current independent deal nets the band about 40% of the total purchase price on a CD or download. Even with that, I wouldn't think twice about letting anyone who wanted to use my music in their project. I would prefer they credit the song somewhere, just so folks know what to go look for, but stuff like stupid youtube videos just grant your music more and more exposure. More people hear your band, more people check out who you are, and then (hopefully!!) more people come pay to see you perform.
Internet regulation is mind-bogglingly dumb at this point. It will have to happen eventually, but only once the other sources for media such as television and radio have disappeared completely and the internet is the only option for all broadcasts. Even then, you can keep your damn regulations off my music industry, please and thank you. We're poor enough without having our best publicity tool neutered.
Smart musicians don't support this kind of thing. There's so little money made from recordings by the musicians themselves that most of us could care less about not getting a royalty check from some pajama-person's crappy youtube video. As of 2 years ago, the band U2 had one of the best major-label record deals in the country and they make about $1.25 off of every complete album they sell. Then they go make 200 grand in profits for playing a one-night show in NYC. My current independent deal nets the band about 40% of the total purchase price on a CD or download. Even with that, I wouldn't think twice about letting anyone who wanted to use my music in their project. I would prefer they credit the song somewhere, just so folks know what to go look for, but stuff like stupid youtube videos just grant your music more and more exposure. More people hear your band, more people check out who you are, and then (hopefully!!) more people come pay to see you perform.
Internet regulation is mind-bogglingly dumb at this point. It will have to happen eventually, but only once the other sources for media such as television and radio have disappeared completely and the internet is the only option for all broadcasts. Even then, you can keep your damn regulations off my music industry, please and thank you. We're poor enough without having our best publicity tool neutered.
Re: Protect IP
Brig,
Google music can deal directly with your band (without an intermediary label) and will pay you %70.
Google music can deal directly with your band (without an intermediary label) and will pay you %70.
-
Malebrignon
- Lost
- Posts: 480
- Location: Hellinois
Re: Protect IP
Yes, but they don't provide you with a studio, producer, recording time, and booking agent. I'm more than happy to let them do all the work at this point.
And if I recall correctly, Bandcamp.com takes an even smaller cut....if you have studio recordings to post and mechanical licenses for any cover tunes you may have recorded.
And if I recall correctly, Bandcamp.com takes an even smaller cut....if you have studio recordings to post and mechanical licenses for any cover tunes you may have recorded.
Re: Protect IP
Apologies for stepping in where I have no clue and no talent but isn't the studio/producer/recording-time/booking-agent kinda old skool? Who provides that other than labels? I thought the kids these days recorded on their iphones and mixed it thereon(there's an app for that!) and did their own booking.
Grisbault, Twice-Made.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
Re: Protect IP
Grisbault, Twice-Made.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
Re: Protect IP
Also, if you can spend more than twenty seconds paying attention to one subject today:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201111 ... deas.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201111 ... deas.shtml
Grisbault, Twice-Made.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
Re: Protect IP
Of course the government will never abuse its power to seize domains, right?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201112 ... ails.shtml
Remember kids - if something can be abused it WILL be, no ifs and or buts. So never let your government or an of its agencies, departments, or ministries get its filthy grubby hands on any power that a conniving, scheming evil bastard could use for harm.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201112 ... ails.shtml
Remember kids - if something can be abused it WILL be, no ifs and or buts. So never let your government or an of its agencies, departments, or ministries get its filthy grubby hands on any power that a conniving, scheming evil bastard could use for harm.
Grisbault, Twice-Made.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
The p, s, l, and t are silent, the screams are not.
Re: Protect IP
Wow... that last post is terrifying...
Re: Protect IP
Tell me about it. The failed initiative to establish a 'clean feed' ISP level internet filter in Australia was touted by labour as an essential element in the fight against online child pornography. Lies! The opposition to the initiative showed how such a filter would do little to nothing to prevent that kind of thing; seriously, child porn isn't circulated via publically accessible websites- plus even if it was, any determined user could easily enough circumvent such a filter with a proxy. Hidden in the small print of the proposal was that the blacklist would be used to prevent 'illegal' sites. The true purpose of the filter was doubtless to screen out the public from filesharing sites. For the children.
I myself am a fan of the 'copyleft' movement, which seeks to make copyright/IP law more similar to academic plagiarism laws. Basically, if you create something, it is your until your release it to the public, at which point it becomes a public resource. Information should be free. However, while you no longer have an entitlement to dictate how that material is used or copied- let alone royalties- you DO have a right to credit for your work. If someone wants to copy your work and upload it to Bittorrent, all the better for your exposure as an artist. If someone does that without giving you due credit, or claiming the credit for themselves, they are commiting a crime. More or less just like taking someone else's research and claiming it is your own.
What about the content producer's profits? Well things will have to change. We live in the information age now, where inestimable amounts of information can be copied, shared, and accessed infinitely live all over the world. By treating information as a 'product', then automatically you have a near infinite oversupply driving down the price. By trying to criminalise that over supply, you are resisting the economic reality and missing the point. Prior to the internet, it was easy enough to consider information as a tradable good, because it was hardwritten to actual tradable goods. This is no longer so, information has been liberated by the internet.
So information is worthless? Not quite, it has become a public good- like air (If we lived in space, and air was scarce, and traded in cannisters, it would make sense to treat it as a trade good. Here on earth it does not). It is impractical in nonsensical to try and legislate a forced paradigm upon a situation that will naturally erode and evade it. The truth is, information was never the valuable thing that made artists rich. It has always been easy enough to copy, but those who make brilliant replicas do not excel as much as those who paint brilliant originals. No; the worth of information lies in the artists themselves, and their creative capital.
The business of media will have to shift to accommodate this new reality- to even propose that no fundamental change would be triggered by a development so profoundly transformative as the internet is absurd; let alone the idea that the internet should be shoehorned in such a way as to allow the old business model to continue.
I myself am a fan of the 'copyleft' movement, which seeks to make copyright/IP law more similar to academic plagiarism laws. Basically, if you create something, it is your until your release it to the public, at which point it becomes a public resource. Information should be free. However, while you no longer have an entitlement to dictate how that material is used or copied- let alone royalties- you DO have a right to credit for your work. If someone wants to copy your work and upload it to Bittorrent, all the better for your exposure as an artist. If someone does that without giving you due credit, or claiming the credit for themselves, they are commiting a crime. More or less just like taking someone else's research and claiming it is your own.
What about the content producer's profits? Well things will have to change. We live in the information age now, where inestimable amounts of information can be copied, shared, and accessed infinitely live all over the world. By treating information as a 'product', then automatically you have a near infinite oversupply driving down the price. By trying to criminalise that over supply, you are resisting the economic reality and missing the point. Prior to the internet, it was easy enough to consider information as a tradable good, because it was hardwritten to actual tradable goods. This is no longer so, information has been liberated by the internet.
So information is worthless? Not quite, it has become a public good- like air (If we lived in space, and air was scarce, and traded in cannisters, it would make sense to treat it as a trade good. Here on earth it does not). It is impractical in nonsensical to try and legislate a forced paradigm upon a situation that will naturally erode and evade it. The truth is, information was never the valuable thing that made artists rich. It has always been easy enough to copy, but those who make brilliant replicas do not excel as much as those who paint brilliant originals. No; the worth of information lies in the artists themselves, and their creative capital.
The business of media will have to shift to accommodate this new reality- to even propose that no fundamental change would be triggered by a development so profoundly transformative as the internet is absurd; let alone the idea that the internet should be shoehorned in such a way as to allow the old business model to continue.
Re: Protect IP
There is a difference between "information" in academics and a product that can be saved digitally such as a computer program, or a work of art such as a song.
If I cannot sell my product, because you just made it worthless and free to anyone who wants to download it, I cannot be a professional. You just put me out of work. I will have to change jobs to feed my kids? Or do I just rely on the charity of the people benefiting from my work?
This is why cloud computing and SaaS (Software as a Service) (read MMO/Steam) are taking off. Companies are no longer "releasing" their products, but only licensing them for use. I suspect as we get closer to an online world, you will no longer be able to "download" anything. You will have to be connected to the internet to play your music for example.
This is similar to the way books are going with Kindle and Kobo.
I have no idea why people think that because a product is easy to steal, it should be morally correct to steal it.
If I cannot sell my product, because you just made it worthless and free to anyone who wants to download it, I cannot be a professional. You just put me out of work. I will have to change jobs to feed my kids? Or do I just rely on the charity of the people benefiting from my work?
This is why cloud computing and SaaS (Software as a Service) (read MMO/Steam) are taking off. Companies are no longer "releasing" their products, but only licensing them for use. I suspect as we get closer to an online world, you will no longer be able to "download" anything. You will have to be connected to the internet to play your music for example.
This is similar to the way books are going with Kindle and Kobo.
I have no idea why people think that because a product is easy to steal, it should be morally correct to steal it.