Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups

On 2/07/2010 1:07 AM, ailo wrote:
> On 07/01/2010 03:09 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
>> Hey guys!
>>
>> And while I am preparing my answer to some very excellent points made
>> here (some of which made me rethink several particular situations), I
>> want to give you some food for discussion - do we really want more
>> professionals in the field of arts? Is it an unquestionable good that
>> musicians make a living out of music?
>>
>> Or, more obviously, writers? What would a writer have to say if all he
>> sees is his writing desk? So many creative people, both musicians and
>> writers, changed many professions, received lots and lots of life
>> experience before they started to seriously create stuff, reflecting
>> on their experiences.
>>
>> But so far the law assumes that if someone makes a living off of his
>> creativity, it will necessarily make him more fruitful. But I've seen
>> several cases when the effect was the opposite. And that was actually
>> in the field of music, when a musician would loose his originality and
>> touch once he got a contract and started to pump out professional cds.
>> Something did not work out.
>>
> Yes, a very big change for a lot of artist who one day are totally
> unknown (doing everything by themselves) and the next day having tons of
> pressure because of all the people involved: managers, producers, fans,
> etc. And suddenly a lot of people are trying to get you to do things
> their way (all in the interest of making some money). This of course
> usually only happens to artists who make music that CAN make a lot of
> money.
>
>> Also, when the professional scene is not so dominating, people tend to
>> be more musically educated. And in general more people know how to
>> sing and/or play an instrument. It is actually a statistical fact that
>> folk music has deteriorated with the rise of professional music and
>> that the active involvement of people into music has decreased very
>> significantly, since it became uncommon to compete with highly trained
>> professionals. A lot of music today is passive entertainment, not
>> active. This does have an indirect connection to copyright, since
>> songs written yesterday were written for everybody to sing (even if
>> they take money for the performance). Nowadays songs are written to be
>> listened.
>>
>> Louigi.
> At least I would say that people's listening habits aren't as polarized
> as they used to be (remember the times when there were only two music
> styles: hard rock and synth?). I don't even know if music has the same
> effect on people anymore, since there's so much else on the internet
> these days. This may be a very subjective observation, though.
>
> Regarding copyright, have you guys heard of Spotify? It can be used for
> free (but with annoying commercial breaks). I've heard that artist are
> beginning to earn some money from that now (it was a bit slow in the
> beginning).

It's a nice idea, but the money flowing back to the artists from these
streaming services is depressingly small:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

> I could imagine having a system like Myspace, where anyone could set up
> an account, and earn money from the traffic amount. Sort of royalty
> based income, no middle hands needed. This would at least ensure total
> freedom from the artists perspective (especially if one has a lot of
> freedom with the web design, using both audio and video). The artist
> that wish to make it into an enterprise will no doubt keep working with
> producers and managers, even without the traditional record company.

It doesn't give you any freedom with the web design, but Youtube does
this to a degree -- if your video gets enough plays you can begin to get
a share of the revenues it brings in. I don't know a lot about this
though, so it's entirely possible that the revenues are just as
depressing as the streaming music services! I'd assume it would also
depend on just how annoying you decide to allow the advertising on your
videos to be.

> The problem is of course restrictions. What sort of restrictions and who
> decides them?
> There was an idea that everyone who pays for Internet would also pay a
> fee to access any kind of media. All the media you want, for a fixed
> price, like taxes. The money would then be distributed to artist in the
> form of royalty.

I've always wondered how these schemes work -- similar things already
exist for blank media (CDs, etc.) in some places. Where does the money
go to, and how does it get distributed to the artists? Who decides each
artist's share?

Thanks
Leigh
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Fri Jul 2 08:15:01 2010