7 ms·

Sure, if they can get that to work. It's not the way I would try to provide value if I were an author. The point is that artists need to deal with the realities

Sure, if they can get that to work. It's not the way I would try to provide value if I were an author. The point is that artists need to deal with the realities before them and stop listening to the lies that industry tells them. You again seem to be making some sort of moral judgment about the situation. I'm talking about economic reality. If authors think that they can make money by charging for copies (which have a marginal cost of ~0) because they think their product is that much superior to everyone else's, then that's great, but that will obviously only work for a small minority of authors, if at all. I'm saying extracting money from copies is the old game, and it's over. The new game is trying to figure out how to make money from the value you can provide. And the fact is that the technology that's destroying the old model is also enabling new ones. The most obvious business model going forward is toiling in obscurity on your own dime and releasing a free product. If it's good enough, i.e. if people value it enough, then you can crowd-fund (a la kickstarter) the production of subsequent products. Here your value is as a creator of products, not a distributor. That's just the first thing that occurs to me after ten seconds of thinking about it. I'm sure there are many other viable models. To me, the future looks vibrant and refreshing. There are fewer gatekeepers to our collective culture, we have more direct access to creators of culture, the experience is more interactive, the barrier to entry is lower, and the exchange of ideas is freer. I hope it's a future filled with more Amanda Palmer and less Avatar.

Tycho 15y ago
There's two issues here. 1. Pirating other peoples work is morally wrong. 2. You're kidding yourself if you think the economics that ruin labels and retailers are not going to just as quickly ruin independent acts. As is painfully obvious from the example of authors - they rely entirely on people honouring their intellectual property and would have basically no income without selling 'copies.' Just because musicians have a few alternative options, eg. live performances, doesn't change the underlying argument. What goes for authors, or filmmakers, should go for musicians or any other artists. Why do you keep talking vaguely about alternative business models? There are none. Nobody's going to invent an ingenious new way of making money out of music. There's live performance or there's selling intellectual property. That's it.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Ah, so it's two separate arguments, a moral one and an economic one. 1. I disagree. I'm curious as to the precise moral dimension you're talking about here. 2. You're kidding yourself if you think you can stop it, or that by plugging your ears and closing your eyes you can make it all go away. Most of your argument seems to be that because artists rely on selling copies now, that it must always be so. The fact is, artistic expression predates copying technology. Art fits into the technological capabilities that exist, not the other way around. Before image copying tech, artists made paintings, drawings, and sculptures, and sold them. There were other business models as well, like private and religious patronage. In ancient times, oral poets travelled and essentially gave live concerts. Dramatists had state sponsorship. Many of these business models and even entire mediums died out as our technology changed. That's what happens. Maybe authors as we know them will figure out a way to survive, or maybe they'll die out. Same goes for filmmakers, musicians or any other artists. There's nothing special about the particular art forms we have now. I keep talking vaguely about alternative business models because we're at a transition point. They haven't been invented yet. "Nobody's going to invent an ingenious new way of making money out of music. There's live performance or there's selling intellectual property. That's it." That's the spirit! You'd better tell Amanda Palmer, though, I don't think she got that memo.
  - Tycho 15y ago
    1. We could go on for several pages about the 'precise moral dimensions' but we both know that taking somebody's work, for nothing, against their wishes, is not cool. If you don't want to pay for it, do without it. Civilisation is built on mutual respect of rights. 2. Maybe piracy is here to stay. I just resent the sneaky suggestion that its only the lumbering, dinosaur labels with their outmoded industrial apparatus that are going to suffer. It's not true at all. The people with the most to lose are the artists themselves - especially the more intellectual ones, eg. authors. In your brave new world, The Beatles would have continued touring pub venues and only the lucky few who got to see them would realise how much they stood out from the 10,000 other bands doing the same thing. Oh and religious and aristocratic patronage as a primary 'business model' royally sucked - that's basically why the copyright model and the arts have thrived over the last few hundred years. Its why we get to watch 100MM budget movies. It's a bloody good system and it's a crying shame to throw it away just because of piracy.

Tycho 15y ago

There's two issues here. 1. Pirating other peoples work is morally wrong. 2. You're kidding yourself if you think the economics that ruin labels and retailers are not going to just as quickly ruin independent acts. As is painfully obvious from the example of authors - they rely entirely on people honouring their intellectual property and would have basically no income without selling 'copies.' Just because musicians have a few alternative options, eg. live performances, doesn't change the underlying argument. What goes for authors, or filmmakers, should go for musicians or any other artists. Why do you keep talking vaguely about alternative business models? There are none. Nobody's going to invent an ingenious new way of making money out of music. There's live performance or there's selling intellectual property. That's it.

joebadmo 15y ago
Ah, so it's two separate arguments, a moral one and an economic one. 1. I disagree. I'm curious as to the precise moral dimension you're talking about here. 2. You're kidding yourself if you think you can stop it, or that by plugging your ears and closing your eyes you can make it all go away. Most of your argument seems to be that because artists rely on selling copies now, that it must always be so. The fact is, artistic expression predates copying technology. Art fits into the technological capabilities that exist, not the other way around. Before image copying tech, artists made paintings, drawings, and sculptures, and sold them. There were other business models as well, like private and religious patronage. In ancient times, oral poets travelled and essentially gave live concerts. Dramatists had state sponsorship. Many of these business models and even entire mediums died out as our technology changed. That's what happens. Maybe authors as we know them will figure out a way to survive, or maybe they'll die out. Same goes for filmmakers, musicians or any other artists. There's nothing special about the particular art forms we have now. I keep talking vaguely about alternative business models because we're at a transition point. They haven't been invented yet. "Nobody's going to invent an ingenious new way of making money out of music. There's live performance or there's selling intellectual property. That's it." That's the spirit! You'd better tell Amanda Palmer, though, I don't think she got that memo.
- Tycho 15y ago
  1. We could go on for several pages about the 'precise moral dimensions' but we both know that taking somebody's work, for nothing, against their wishes, is not cool. If you don't want to pay for it, do without it. Civilisation is built on mutual respect of rights. 2. Maybe piracy is here to stay. I just resent the sneaky suggestion that its only the lumbering, dinosaur labels with their outmoded industrial apparatus that are going to suffer. It's not true at all. The people with the most to lose are the artists themselves - especially the more intellectual ones, eg. authors. In your brave new world, The Beatles would have continued touring pub venues and only the lucky few who got to see them would realise how much they stood out from the 10,000 other bands doing the same thing. Oh and religious and aristocratic patronage as a primary 'business model' royally sucked - that's basically why the copyright model and the arts have thrived over the last few hundred years. Its why we get to watch 100MM budget movies. It's a bloody good system and it's a crying shame to throw it away just because of piracy.