Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com

[Range_This11]

I would agree, just wanted to check to see what you were really referring to. Owning work and owning time are very different concepts. Basing the argument on the ownership of work would nullify it, BUT since you aren't doing that...well stated! :shades:

[Guest jrhairychest]

Fact is they are quickly becoming obsolete. They could have innovated and used the Internet, but they stuck to their old, embarrassingly profitable model, and now there's no room for another Internet-based business. Netflix, Bandcamp, iTunes, et al took over. Production means are being democratised: think of the dozens of amateur dubstep producers you know who didn't hire anyone to help them create their product. What used to require an amp can be done on an iPad. Distribution on the internet is now almost easy, free and instantaneous--no need for labels. Artists can now profit when their music sells, which is a big plus if you consider the Steve Albini article I posted earlier. They're losing out, whether there is piracy or not. And it's about time they do.

 

I disagree. A budding musician needs the marketing and distribution power of the big companies to really make it. Anyone can be a 5 minute Internet sensation but without the big guns behind you then it's a difficult business to sustain. And so what if these companies make money? So what if it's a lot of it? Its good for the artist and good for the economy. The songs are pretty damn cheap too off Itunes. The artists only ever complain when they become big time charlies and start to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

What about movies and software? They take big time backing with a number of talented people at their disposal and someone to finance it. It's not quite as easy as cutting out the middle man.

[Omar]

Have you read the Steve Albini article I'm talking about? I have nothing against successful businesses, but I do hate the unethical practices highlighted by Albini.

I never said labels are obsolete; I said labels are becoming obsolete, especially big ones, and that their golden goose is on the loose, to quote Iron Maiden (out of context).

I won't speak for software and movies, because I know too little about them. I chose that MPAA quote because it's particularly striking, but radios and tape cassettes were once a huge deal.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Have you read the Steve Albini article I'm talking about? I have nothing against successful businesses, but I do hate the unethical practices highlighted by Albini.

I never said labels are obsolete; I said labels are becoming obsolete, especially big ones, and that their golden goose is on the loose, to quote Iron Maiden (out of context).

I won't speak for software and movies, because I know too little about them. I chose that MPAA quote because it's particularly striking, but radios and tape cassettes were once a huge deal.

Yep I read it. Pretty unlucky. That however does not paint the picture of the music industry. Sure there will be some unscrupulous practice. That's true of any business. I'd have hired my own lawyer and accountant if I was about to sign my life away like that. Act in haste, repent at leisure. I still think that music requires the big guns simply because of what I said in my previous post and I certainly don't think they'll become obsolete, they'll just have to adapt.

[Omar]

I'm inclined to think the person who produced In Utero can paint a very accurate picture of the music industry, actually.

I'm still not sure you read the article, considering a lawyer is mentioned several times.

Music is less reliant on labels. They won't disappear, but the major labels will lose much of their market share, as big artists sign to independent labels (Adele, pun unintended). Whatever they do to adapt, they didn't act quickly enough at this point save this oligopoly.

 

Finally, you talk about making it a lot. What do you call "making it"?

A lot of great comments on my recent piece for TuneCore, but one in particular sort of got my wheel’s spinning.

 

Ken Shane and I got in a bit of back and forth about – generally – what constitutes success in this music business model.

 

In attempting to address Mr. Shane’s point I suggested that for virtually every other artistic endeavor aside from music there is little-to-no expectation that most people will make their living engaging solely in this activity.

 

For example, few people think, “I’m a fine art photographer, and I should be able to just take fine art photos.” The vast majority of fine art photographers I know subsidize their gig by doing non-fine-art work (weddings, photo-journalism) and/or work completely unrelated to photography (stock brokering, etc.).

 

Same is true, of course, for writers, actors, painters…mimes, et al.

 

None of these people (particularly mimes) feel that they are somehow deserved of the right to mime and mime only — they have some other non-mime gig to subsidize their mime-itude.

 

Musicians, for some odd reason (and, arguably, actors too) tend to feel doing non-music work is somehow beneath them/hinders their ability to create great art. They often seem taken aback when it’s suggested that perhaps they have to do some other job in addition to creating their art. (Yes, I’m generalizing, but, in my experience, only a little bit.)

 

In reality, of course, it’s not just a bifurcated life that artists must live — having multiple jobs.

 

Who doesn’t have several jobs? My wife is a full-time mom who also does educational consultation and teaches bellydance. Don’t even get me started on my crazy-ass schizophrenic activity. Frankly, most everyone I know is juggling several “jobs.”

 

And yet musicians want one job: musician.

 

In any case, the message here isn’t that musicians are solipsistic, but rather what I tried to convey in my response to Mr. Shane’s comment to my TuneCore post: that we all must have jobs that allow us the time/money/freedom to pursue the work that makes our life meaningful (our art).

 

In other words, we have to have: The gig (lowercase) that helps sustain the Gig (uppercase) that sustains the Spirit.

 

Of course, the old adage of “do what you love, and never work another day” isn’t necessarily wrong, it’s just reductive.

 

No one is so monochromatic as to have a single thing they love; we all have a variety of interests, and, thus, we all do many things.

 

Some things we do because they align with our values and purpose, and some things we do in a purely mercenary manner so we can do more of our purpose-driven things.

 

Such is life. Thank goodness.

 

Many of the aspiring artists I know want to make music and connect with people that love it, not necessarily become famous and rich. And many labels won't sign them (Rock in Opposition and all types of music that aren't meant to make money).

[Furah]

I disagree. A budding musician needs the marketing and distribution power of the big companies to really make it. Anyone can be a 5 minute Internet sensation but without the big guns behind you then it's a difficult business to sustain. And so what if these companies make money? So what if it's a lot of it? Its good for the artist and good for the economy. The songs are pretty damn cheap too off Itunes. The artists only ever complain when they become big time charlies and start to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

What about movies and software? They take big time backing with a number of talented people at their disposal and someone to finance it. It's not quite as easy as cutting out the middle man.

 

They ones who would have been a 5-minute internet sensation wouldn't even sell enough albums to pay off their debt to their label in the first place. The internet is now providing ways that the artists can earn the majority of the money from album sales, and the recording industry does not like a competition that has the advantage over it.

 

As for software, some of the best software I've ever used was free. Linux, foobar 2000, rainmeter, Google Chrome, ImgBurn, 7-zip, CCleaner, f.lux, Mumble, are all great pieces of software, and not one of them costs a cent to legally download.

[Omar]

Minecraft too, IIRC.

[Furah]

Creative mode is, but to get anything out of it, you need to buy it.

[Guest jrhairychest]

I'm inclined to think the person who produced In Utero can paint a very accurate picture of the music industry, actually.

I'm still not sure you read the article, considering a lawyer is mentioned several times.

Music is less reliant on labels. They won't disappear, but the major labels will lose much of their market share, as big artists sign to independent labels (Adele, pun unintended). Whatever they do to adapt, they didn't act quickly enough at this point save this oligopoly.

 

Finally, you talk about making it a lot. What do you call "making it"?

If you read my last statement it says 'my own' laywer and accountant.

 

In relation to your other things if the music industry was so bad then nobody would be making music. You're using these examples to paint some of the music industry as the big bad ogre as a way of justification for piracy of music. If these artists are as really ripped off by the organisations as you say they are then all you're doing is ripping off the artist further. If you were successful in sending all these organisations to oblivion what then...? You'd just be looking for other excuses to pirate music under the banner of saving some other poor soul.

 

They ones who would have been a 5-minute internet sensation wouldn't even sell enough albums to pay off their debt to their label in the first place. The internet is now providing ways that the artists can earn the majority of the money from album sales, and the recording industry does not like a competition that has the advantage over it.

 

As for software, some of the best software I've ever used was free. Linux, foobar 2000, rainmeter, Google Chrome, ImgBurn, 7-zip, CCleaner, f.lux, Mumble, are all great pieces of software, and not one of them costs a cent to legally download.

 

For your first point, see the second paragraph of my response to Omar.

 

You are absolutely correct that some of the best software is free.............but most of it isn't. If you really take a look at some of the software you've listed there are 'pay for' versions with more features.

[Omar]

If you read my last statement it says 'my own' laywer and accountant.

...you thought the lawyer was affiliated with the company he's supposed to defend the artists from? Pass the kouchie!

In relation to your other things if the music industry was so bad then nobody would be making music.

Actually, they would either be clueless and fall into the trap or be smart about it and find alternative means. And since the music industry is so bad and people are becoming more aware of this, they're going towards alternative means of publishing their music, and that sucks apparently.

You're using these examples to paint some of the music industry as the big bad ogre as a way of justification for piracy of music.

Nope.

If these artists are as really ripped off by the organisations as you say they are then all you're doing is ripping off the artist further.

Nope. Nearly no revenue goes to the artist. Besides, I already don't pirate from major labels, not out of principle but rather because most of what they put out is shit. And finally, when I do pirate, there is literally no negative consequence. If I didn't start pirating, I would have dropped my guitar, never really gotten into music, and would never have started buying music. Now I buy albums once I've listened to them several times and I know they're my essentials, and fact is that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The rest, I often delete or never listen to again.

 

If you were successful in sending all these organisations to oblivion what then...? You'd just be looking for other excuses to pirate music under the banner of saving some other poor soul.

It's not activism. It's something I do so I can listen to music. I don't need to find excuses to pirate because I (still, sorry obfuscator) don't think it's wrong. I'm not painting the music industry in a bad light to justify what I'm doing: I'm doing it to point out how ridiculous their anti-piracy campaigns are.

[Furah]

I'm inclined to think the person who produced In Utero can paint a very accurate picture of the music industry, actually.

I'm still not sure you read the article, considering a lawyer is mentioned several times.

Music is less reliant on labels. They won't disappear, but the major labels will lose much of their market share, as big artists sign to independent labels (Adele, pun unintended). Whatever they do to adapt, they didn't act quickly enough at this point save this oligopoly.

 

Finally, you talk about making it a lot. What do you call "making it"?

If you read my last statement it says 'my own' laywer and accountant.

 

In relation to your other things if the music industry was so bad then nobody would be making music. You're using these examples to paint some of the music industry as the big bad ogre as a way of justification for piracy of music. If these artists are as really ripped off by the organisations as you say they are then all you're doing is ripping off the artist further. If you were successful in sending all these organisations to oblivion what then...? You'd just be looking for other excuses to pirate music under the banner of saving some other poor soul.

 

They ones who would have been a 5-minute internet sensation wouldn't even sell enough albums to pay off their debt to their label in the first place. The internet is now providing ways that the artists can earn the majority of the money from album sales, and the recording industry does not like a competition that has the advantage over it.

 

As for software, some of the best software I've ever used was free. Linux, foobar 2000, rainmeter, Google Chrome, ImgBurn, 7-zip, CCleaner, f.lux, Mumble, are all great pieces of software, and not one of them costs a cent to legally download.

 

For your first point, see the second paragraph of my response to Omar.

 

You are absolutely correct that some of the best software is free.............but most of it isn't. If you really take a look at some of the software you've listed there are 'pay for' versions with more features.

 

Did you even read the article I linked to? Of course not all artists don't pay off their debt. But the majority end up with debts to which they cannot pay off. They may front you the money

 

[/font]Unlike touring fees, of which the record company can only recoup half, record advances are 100 percent recoupable. That means that if the label fronts an artist $75,000 to pay for whatever he or she needs to record an album--studio time, new instruments, etc. -- the artist then owes the label that initial $75,000, regardless of whether the record is a success or not.

 

None of the things I linked have paid-for versions. Yes, some of them have paid-for alternatives, but none of them are better. I even find the free alternative for Photoshop to be better to use. The thing is that we don't need to pirate things to destroy the industries, they can't compete with the legal, and free, alternatives.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Kimberly
Made quote readable

[Guest jrhairychest]

...you thought the lawyer was affiliated with the company he's supposed to defend the artists from? Pass the kouchie!

Then I guess I can blame the stupidity of the artist for not asking "what do i get overall after everythings paid?". That's the first thing I'd want to know.

 

Actually, they would either be clueless and fall into the trap or be smart about it and find alternative means. And since the music industry is so bad and people are becoming more aware of this, they're going towards alternative means of publishing their music, and that sucks apparently

 

You're using these examples to paint some of the music industry as the big bad ogre as a way of justification for piracy of music.

Nope.

Sorry, not buying that.

 

Nope. Nearly no revenue goes to the artist. Besides, I already don't pirate from major labels, not out of principle but rather because most of what they put out is shit. And finally, when I do pirate, there is literally no negative consequence. If I didn't start pirating, I would have dropped my guitar, never really gotten into music, and would never have started buying music. Now I buy albums once I've listened to them several times and I know they're my essentials, and fact is that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The rest, I often delete or never listen to again.

I must remember to use this excuse should I ever steal something. I'll just tell them I'm trying before I buy and if I don't like it I'll give it them back...if I remember.

 

It's not activism. It's something I do so I can listen to music. I don't need to find excuses to pirate because I (still, sorry obfuscator) don't think it's wrong. I'm not painting the music industry in a bad light to justify what I'm doing: I'm doing it to point out how ridiculous their anti-piracy campaigns are.

If you won't admit that what you do is wrong then that's your problem.

 

Did you even read the article I linked to? Of course not all artists don't pay off their debt. But the majority end up with debts to which they cannot pay off. They may front you the money

Of course I did.....and? What do you want me to say?....."Hey Furah the music industry are terrible and rip off the artists so you're really justified in ripping off the artist more no matter what pittance they get, and don't worry about the money you owe the company...forget about the laws as they don't apply to you". :rolleyes:

 

None of the things I linked have paid-for versions. Yes, some of them have paid-for alternatives, but none of them are better. I even find the free alternative for Photoshop to be better to use. The thing is that we don't need to pirate things to destroy the industries, they can't compete with the legal, and free, alternatives.

Be realistic. The only good programs in your list are Chrome and CCleaner. The rest aren't worth trying to make money from. Google has it's own motives for you to use Chrome so it's not like they're being all nice and giving away free stuff for nothing. Ccleaner is only free for none-network use. If you want the network version you have to pay for it. Its available on Piniforms site.

 

*Edited to fix some tags on quotes

[Furah]

Be realistic. The only good programs in your list are Chrome and CCleaner. The rest aren't worth trying to make money from. Google has it's own motives for you to use Chrome so it's not like they're being all nice and giving away free stuff for nothing. Ccleaner is only free for none-network use. If you want the network version you have to pay for it. Its available on Piniforms site.

... Ok that's it, you've got to be shitting me.

 

foobar2000 is an amazing media player, both nimble and minimalistic. Rainmeter is another handy piece of software that actually gets me to look at my wallpaper as I just minimise everything and get access to system usage, HDD space used/total, a good look at how large my recycling bin is, network monitoring, and an RSS feed. ImgBurn is something I find extremely handy as it allows me to back-up discs I own to allow me to keep them in a safe space and still use them. My DVD drive is also non-functional so it allows me to still install games onto my desktop using my laptop. 7-zip is only not useful if you've never interacted with any compressed files. F.lux is truly a marvellous program that adjusts colour temp of your monitor based on the time of day, so as to cause less damage to your eyes at night. Mumble is an amazing voice chat application that can integrate rather well with afew of games, offering both an overlay, along with positional audio allowing you to hear your teammates as if they were actually talking to you from in the game.

 

 

 

Thanks for fixing up my quote Kimberly, I spent a good few minutes trying to fix it but couldn't for some reason.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Be realistic. The only good programs in your list are Chrome and CCleaner. The rest aren't worth trying to make money from. Google has it's own motives for you to use Chrome so it's not like they're being all nice and giving away free stuff for nothing. Ccleaner is only free for none-network use. If you want the network version you have to pay for it. Its available on Piniforms site.

... Ok that's it, you've got to be shitting me.

 

foobar2000 is an amazing media player, both nimble and minimalistic. Rainmeter is another handy piece of software that actually gets me to look at my wallpaper as I just minimise everything and get access to system usage, HDD space used/total, a good look at how large my recycling bin is, network monitoring, and an RSS feed. ImgBurn is something I find extremely handy as it allows me to back-up discs I own to allow me to keep them in a safe space and still use them. My DVD drive is also non-functional so it allows me to still install games onto my desktop using my laptop. 7-zip is only not useful if you've never interacted with any compressed files. F.lux is truly a marvellous program that adjusts colour temp of your monitor based on the time of day, so as to cause less damage to your eyes at night. Mumble is an amazing voice chat application that can integrate rather well with afew of games, offering both an overlay, along with positional audio allowing you to hear your teammates as if they were actually talking to you from in the game.

 

 

 

Thanks for fixing up my quote Kimberly, I spent a good few minutes trying to fix it but couldn't for some reason.

 

I'm sure they're all useful to you but they're not really commercially viable products. Otherwise they'd charge for them and people would buy them.

[Racheya]

Or, y'know, maybe the developers just have open source ideals and don't want to sell them? There's other free software out there like Linux - are you telling me that an Operating System isn't commercially viable?

[Guest jrhairychest]

Or, y'know, maybe the developers just have open source ideals and don't want to sell them? There's other free software out there like Linux - are you telling me that an Operating System isn't commercially viable?

Did you read my last post properly cos you seem to have assumed I meant all software instead of the ones Furah was referring to. Sure there are plenty of open source software out there - Some good, most of it terrible. Funnily enough, there are commercial versions of Linux which are paid for as well which also include support as part of the package as well as other features. Being a computing student you would have known that already :lol:

[Alg]

I can actually think of some paid equivalents for one/some of the programs that Furah mentioned (WinRAR(?) to 7-Zip), as well as a handful of other free programs where the difference between the paid one comes down to personal preference (GIMP to Photoshop).

 

One notable difference being open source... If the free/open source program doesn't suit your needs you could change it so that it does, while paid products tend to be built so that the average user won't have to.

[Nomrombom]

Winrar is free, as is 7zip. The program is just like "hey dude...please buy me, you ran out the demo time..." and then they let you keep using it every time.

[Kimberly]

Winrar is free, as is 7zip. The program is just like "hey dude...please buy me, you ran out the demo time..." and then they let you keep using it every time.

 

Winrar isn't intended to be a free product, people just disregard the law and the EULA.

[obfuscator]

Or, y'know, maybe the developers just have open source ideals and don't want to sell them? There's other free software out there like Linux - are you telling me that an Operating System isn't commercially viable?

Did you read my last post properly cos you seem to have assumed I meant all software instead of the ones Furah was referring to. Sure there are plenty of open source software out there - Some good, most of it terrible. Funnily enough, there are commercial versions of Linux which are paid for as well which also include support as part of the package as well as other features. Being a computing student you would have known that already :lol:

Most open source software is terrible? Clearly you've never used much. There are also a large number of "terrible" commercial applications.

 

The linux kernel is open source. The GNU GPL (which it's licensed under) allows developers to charge money for products developed on it.

[Furah]

There's a big difference between open source and free (as in free speech) software, which is still different to free (as in free beer) software.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Most open source software is terrible? Clearly you've never used much. There are also a large number of "terrible" commercial applications.

 

The linux kernel is open source. The GNU GPL (which it's licensed under) allows developers to charge money for products developed on it.

 

Folly to assume I haven't used much just because you disagree with my opinion. I've been working in computing/software dev for the last 15 years so I know a few things here and there. I'll try any software that's legally free if I think it could do a job. Most are inferior versions of superior commercial applications, and there's no guarantees with it. There are a few exceptions. In terms of commercial applications being terrible you could be right, but the cases are a minority. If they're so terrible they wouldn't be 'commercial' applications. Perhaps you're using the home user point of view on this.

 

Yep I agree with your second paragraph (?).

[obfuscator]

Most open source software is terrible? Clearly you've never used much. There are also a large number of "terrible" commercial applications.

 

The linux kernel is open source. The GNU GPL (which it's licensed under) allows developers to charge money for products developed on it.

 

Folly to assume I haven't used much just because you disagree with my opinion. I've been working in computing/software dev for the last 15 years so I know a few things here and there. I'll try any software that's legally free if I think it could do a job. Most are inferior versions of superior commercial applications, and there's no guarantees with it. There are a few exceptions. In terms of commercial applications being terrible you could be right, but the cases are a minority. If they're so terrible they wouldn't be 'commercial' applications. Perhaps you're using the home user point of view on this.

 

Yep I agree with your second paragraph (?).

 

Actually, I'm a software developer for a company with 1500 employees. And in my experience, there are a comparable number of poorly designed and poorly supported commercial applications and free/open source ones.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Actually, I'm a software developer for a company with 1500 employees. And in my experience, there are a comparable number of poorly designed and poorly supported commercial applications and free/open source ones.

So you should understand the difference between a poorly designed product and a poorly supported product. Poor design goes the way of the dodo unless the product is adapted quickly and with organisational objectives and user interface in mind. There's no money to be made if your product's crap. Organisations tend not to touch much in the way open source/free because of lack of support, it's usually buggier and it's slower to evolve, even if it's very good. They're not comparible because commerical ones wouldn't make the money to keep them commercial and they can be adapted to suit the organisations wants/needs in a timely fashion.

 

These are basic fundamentals *you* should know as a developer.

[Furah]

There's a wondrous way to force sub-par software on people, and it's called compatibility requirement.