4 ms·

That's fine, and you're right about the economic incentive to charge for copies. I happen to resent the use of legal force to do so, and I'm not alone. I belon

That's fine, and you're right about the economic incentive to charge for copies. I happen to resent the use of legal force to do so, and I'm not alone. I belong to the Napster generation, where the muscle arm of the copyright industry destroyed one of the most promising new applications for the Internet, instead of rolling with it and reaching some kind of mutually-beneficial arrangment. We're all still pretty mad about that when we think on it. Like it or not, NFTs represent a way out of this. Taylor Swift has trufans, she could easily cut a limited-issue NFT for her new recording of Fearless, with a smart contract which pays a residual every time it's resold. If she wanted to. Probably not the right time in the hype cycle for her to get on board, there are unsolved questions in terms of user experience. But the option is there, and if it becomes sufficiently widespread we can do away with the whole tawdry cycle of DMCA requests and randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits. That would be all to the good.

prox 6y ago
What’s your take on BitClout?
bradleyjg 6y ago
The sense of entitlement in this comment is pretty shocking. The only justification I see in here is “I want”. That’s it. You (“and I'm not alone”) want certain things and so the world needs to accommodate you. If it doesn’t—-you are telling us you’ll just do what you want anyway. How is this anything other than sociopathic?
andrewzah 6y ago
> randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits That's a weird spelling of "people who want to listen to music -without- paying for it". Napster started a conversation about IP and copyright, but I for one am glad it is dead. DCMA is monumentally stupid in its -implementation-, but the idea is not a bad one. There need to be protections for people who make a living by creating music, art, etc. Yes, that means repercussions for people who reproduce digital content and redistribute it without a license. I think that we can all agree that how these things are currently enforced via the DCMA is rather bad, though. What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work. This includes artists making music that you want "to enjoy". In 2021 there isn't really an excuse, with spotify/apple music/etc existing for streaming, and things like bandcamp for outright buying cds/lps, and discogs for the secondary/used market.
- pydry 6y ago
  >What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work. Most musicians don't get paid for their work or get paid a token amount. I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living. It's not about quality either. It's about distribution channels.
  - jkhdigital 6y ago
    > It's about distribution channels. This is the part that gets completely glossed over when talking about creative output. I’m not convinced that the difference between an artist who commands eight figures in annual revenue and one who commands five figures is a simple matter of talent or dedication to one’s craft. Pop superstars, in particular, are the product of a promotion and distribution machine without which the actual artist would probably enjoy only a small fraction of their reach and popularity. As with most political slogans, “pay people for their work” is in fact an extremely nuanced idea in practice.
  - andrewzah 6y ago
    > I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living. This is a strawman argument. Obviously I would like to see -all- artists get paid a living wage at least for their work. The fact that life isn't fair and TS makes millions isn't my fault, and is not what I'm specifically advocating here.
    - pydry 6y ago
      Obviously you would like to see all artists get paid a living wage in theory but the mechanism for "getting artists paid" that you actually support is one that excels mostly at getting Taylor Swift and her record labels paid, not the average musician. So no, I don't think it is such of a straw man. It's not the average musician who is affected by pirates. Spotify will send them $90 / month instead of $100 / month, maybe.

prox 6y ago

What’s your take on BitClout?

bradleyjg 6y ago

The sense of entitlement in this comment is pretty shocking. The only justification I see in here is “I want”. That’s it. You (“and I'm not alone”) want certain things and so the world needs to accommodate you. If it doesn’t—-you are telling us you’ll just do what you want anyway. How is this anything other than sociopathic?

andrewzah 6y ago

> randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits That's a weird spelling of "people who want to listen to music -without- paying for it". Napster started a conversation about IP and copyright, but I for one am glad it is dead. DCMA is monumentally stupid in its -implementation-, but the idea is not a bad one. There need to be protections for people who make a living by creating music, art, etc. Yes, that means repercussions for people who reproduce digital content and redistribute it without a license. I think that we can all agree that how these things are currently enforced via the DCMA is rather bad, though. What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work. This includes artists making music that you want "to enjoy". In 2021 there isn't really an excuse, with spotify/apple music/etc existing for streaming, and things like bandcamp for outright buying cds/lps, and discogs for the secondary/used market.

pydry 6y ago
>What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work. Most musicians don't get paid for their work or get paid a token amount. I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living. It's not about quality either. It's about distribution channels.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  > It's about distribution channels. This is the part that gets completely glossed over when talking about creative output. I’m not convinced that the difference between an artist who commands eight figures in annual revenue and one who commands five figures is a simple matter of talent or dedication to one’s craft. Pop superstars, in particular, are the product of a promotion and distribution machine without which the actual artist would probably enjoy only a small fraction of their reach and popularity. As with most political slogans, “pay people for their work” is in fact an extremely nuanced idea in practice.
- andrewzah 6y ago
  > I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living. This is a strawman argument. Obviously I would like to see -all- artists get paid a living wage at least for their work. The fact that life isn't fair and TS makes millions isn't my fault, and is not what I'm specifically advocating here.
  - pydry 6y ago
    Obviously you would like to see all artists get paid a living wage in theory but the mechanism for "getting artists paid" that you actually support is one that excels mostly at getting Taylor Swift and her record labels paid, not the average musician. So no, I don't think it is such of a straw man. It's not the average musician who is affected by pirates. Spotify will send them $90 / month instead of $100 / month, maybe.