4 ms·

>I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apar

>I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media. >Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced? Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Same thing with software, I don't mind paying for it, but if you expect people not to copy it - keep it on a private server and expose it as a service, or find some other model.

setrofim_ 15y ago
>Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
- moonchrome 15y ago
  But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
  - setrofim_ 15y ago
    Yes, pretty much everything other than BBC.
shoham 15y ago
Yeah, as an independent, 'starving' artist myself, I take exception to all this happy talk about making information free. It's already hard enough to make a living off of music, or any art, and I'm no fan of the monopolies, but it's incredibly obnoxious when I hear all this stuff about just give all of your work away for free with no path to eventual prosperity, and how "It's the producers problem, why don't they make a new business model". As for the monopolies, that's what they've done with litigation and IP protection measures, albeit more and more draconian ones...
- angersock 15y ago
  So, you do realize that the information is free to duplicate, right? And that there is no way of ensuring you get paid for rent on a resource you can't control the duplication of--at least without causing massive headaches for everyone else? Dude, sell tickets to shows, sell merch at shows, don't perform unless paid before hand. If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave.
  - logic 15y ago
    > If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave. This point bears repeating. As a musician, like it or not, you're an entrepreneur. You can outsource your marketing and collections to a third party in exchange for a percentage of profit (or even in exchange for an advance on anticipated profits), but it doesn't make you any less of a businessperson. Everyone reading Hacker News knows the statistics when it comes to startup success. Why would the music industry (or any artistic endeavor) be any different in this regard? Make something people want, at a price they're willing to pay.
    - shoham 15y ago
      "Everyone reading Hacker News knows the statistics when it comes to startup success. Why would the music industry (or any artistic endeavor) be any different in this regard?" This is the failed model that leads to the kind of monopolies all too well known to artists like myself.. It's sure not the American model for entrepreneurship. This hits "business" business model is for the fucking birds, and this line "If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave." is bullshit. Ask Mozart, Van Gogh, Stephen Foster and lots of other great artists who died penniless. "As a musician, like it or not, you're an entrepreneur" Sorry, I know this and I like it. And as an entrepreneur, what I hate about about the hits business model that started in music, and is making its rounds to software is that it's not a very healthy one -- it's a winner take all, zero sum game, ans it's naive to not understand that most successful business models cannot run this way. Yesterday music, today movies, tomorrow software. TL;DR thank you so much for the lecture, hacker bro. When it comes to: "Make something people want, at a price they're willing to pay."
cgoddard 15y ago
That's a great idea! Provide funding for movies solely with advertising! I'm sure that will result in no conflicts of interest that will severely compromise artistic vision and reduce people to no better than buying machines. </sarcasm> I'm all for free flow of information and such, and the abolition of software patents and other substantial types of patent reform, but this kind of naive radicalism against all IP protection dilutes any reasonable demands for patent reforms and makes any activism look like a joke. When you make a movie you can fund it and distribute it as you please. But it's extremely selfish and arrogant to want to benefit from other people's expensive endeavors, for which they are requesting a small fee to view, and give jack shit in return. By viewing the material you are admitting that there is at least some potential value in it, but by refusing to pay for it you are basically saying the movie studios and artists and writers and others can go ahead and close shop already, because you don't consider their business model viable and refuse to contribute anything. I agree nice entitlement complex you have going there.
- moonchrome 15y ago
  Cinema is a nice way to exclude people from your property. You can mandate no-camera and tighten the security for releases. I have no entitlement complex, as I've said already I don't mind paying for cinema tickets and I don't even use other commercial media. If you're referring to focusing only on consumers and ignoring what's "fair" for the producer, they you are right, but also fail to understand the point of a market system - consumers are entitled, the whole system is designed to satisfy their needs, producers are meant to fight each other to do so and get the best results for the least amount of money. So yes starving artists - you don't have rights that trump the rights of the consumer.

setrofim_ 15y ago

>Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.

moonchrome 15y ago
But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
- setrofim_ 15y ago
  Yes, pretty much everything other than BBC.

shoham 15y ago

Yeah, as an independent, 'starving' artist myself, I take exception to all this happy talk about making information free. It's already hard enough to make a living off of music, or any art, and I'm no fan of the monopolies, but it's incredibly obnoxious when I hear all this stuff about just give all of your work away for free with no path to eventual prosperity, and how "It's the producers problem, why don't they make a new business model". As for the monopolies, that's what they've done with litigation and IP protection measures, albeit more and more draconian ones...

angersock 15y ago
So, you do realize that the information is free to duplicate, right? And that there is no way of ensuring you get paid for rent on a resource you can't control the duplication of--at least without causing massive headaches for everyone else? Dude, sell tickets to shows, sell merch at shows, don't perform unless paid before hand. If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave.
- logic 15y ago
  > If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave. This point bears repeating. As a musician, like it or not, you're an entrepreneur. You can outsource your marketing and collections to a third party in exchange for a percentage of profit (or even in exchange for an advance on anticipated profits), but it doesn't make you any less of a businessperson. Everyone reading Hacker News knows the statistics when it comes to startup success. Why would the music industry (or any artistic endeavor) be any different in this regard? Make something people want, at a price they're willing to pay.
  - shoham 15y ago
    "Everyone reading Hacker News knows the statistics when it comes to startup success. Why would the music industry (or any artistic endeavor) be any different in this regard?" This is the failed model that leads to the kind of monopolies all too well known to artists like myself.. It's sure not the American model for entrepreneurship. This hits "business" business model is for the fucking birds, and this line "If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave." is bullshit. Ask Mozart, Van Gogh, Stephen Foster and lots of other great artists who died penniless. "As a musician, like it or not, you're an entrepreneur" Sorry, I know this and I like it. And as an entrepreneur, what I hate about about the hits business model that started in music, and is making its rounds to software is that it's not a very healthy one -- it's a winner take all, zero sum game, ans it's naive to not understand that most successful business models cannot run this way. Yesterday music, today movies, tomorrow software. TL;DR thank you so much for the lecture, hacker bro. When it comes to: "Make something people want, at a price they're willing to pay."

cgoddard 15y ago

That's a great idea! Provide funding for movies solely with advertising! I'm sure that will result in no conflicts of interest that will severely compromise artistic vision and reduce people to no better than buying machines. </sarcasm> I'm all for free flow of information and such, and the abolition of software patents and other substantial types of patent reform, but this kind of naive radicalism against all IP protection dilutes any reasonable demands for patent reforms and makes any activism look like a joke. When you make a movie you can fund it and distribute it as you please. But it's extremely selfish and arrogant to want to benefit from other people's expensive endeavors, for which they are requesting a small fee to view, and give jack shit in return. By viewing the material you are admitting that there is at least some potential value in it, but by refusing to pay for it you are basically saying the movie studios and artists and writers and others can go ahead and close shop already, because you don't consider their business model viable and refuse to contribute anything. I agree nice entitlement complex you have going there.

moonchrome 15y ago
Cinema is a nice way to exclude people from your property. You can mandate no-camera and tighten the security for releases. I have no entitlement complex, as I've said already I don't mind paying for cinema tickets and I don't even use other commercial media. If you're referring to focusing only on consumers and ignoring what's "fair" for the producer, they you are right, but also fail to understand the point of a market system - consumers are entitled, the whole system is designed to satisfy their needs, producers are meant to fight each other to do so and get the best results for the least amount of money. So yes starving artists - you don't have rights that trump the rights of the consumer.