7 ms·

> The artists can connect with us directly. They love to. Stop bothering us. So why don't they? http://bandcamp.com http://bandcamp.com http://soundcloud.co

> The artists can connect with us directly. They love to. Stop bothering us. So why don't they? http://bandcamp.com http://bandcamp.com http://soundcloud.com http://soundcloud.com http://myspace.com http://myspace.com http://cdbaby.com http://cdbaby.com All services that an artist can use to distribute music yet musicians still choose to sign with labels to this day. Maybe, just maybe labels provide value to artists beyond what you can comprehend? Would Justin Bieber be worth over $100,000,000 if he had released his music on Bandcamp? Would Lady Gaga be worth $150,000,000 if she had released her music on Myspace? Do you think Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber want people to pirate their music and care only about people hearing their music? If that was the case why don't they release it for free? Radiohead released an album independently in... 2005? That was a success, if artists only cared about making music and didn't care about making money why hasn't every artist since released independently? Why can't people that create content be a business? Surely that is the entrepreneurial spirit everyone here is supposed to have... and if so, why can't they be against people that engage in media piracy?

monsterix 14y ago
Point taken. It's good to see the options coming. Yes, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga are creations using the current technology. Not by suppressing freedom to download, or by penalizing consumers who download, or by asking them to behave properly. I never said artists should release their music for free. You did not read properly.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  > I never said artists should release their music for free. You did not read properly. Please can you explain what your point is then, I don't quite understand what you're saying if that is the case. > Not by suppressing freedom to download, or by penalizing consumers who download, or by asking them to behave properly. You mean the freedom to take a product without doing whatever the person licensed to distribute it wants (eg: pay $10) like we have to do with every other product?
  - monsterix 14y ago
    Well this is the hard problem. To make it convenient and sensible for people to buy/watch movies officially, make it possible to show it off to their friends (Like I have a paid subscription), may be adopt SAAS or provide rented streaming in such a way that people say "we have an official access to hurt locker" or something. If it costs $10 a ticket to watch on a big screen, spend gasoline, travel some distance physically, it can surely cost 1/10th (or less) of that amount per movie and yet return similar profits (by volumes) to the artist. People really don't care about the middlemen. Just a few ideas, but obviously the solution is hard. Yet I believe that teaching manners to people, i.e. annoying the consumers is suicidal.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Did I took your post (with or without permission) by accessing this page? Such concepts don't make sense for non-scarce goods.
    - citricsquid 14y ago
      I posted here with the understanding I was providing everyone accessing news.ycombinator.com with access to my post. A comparable example would be if I posted this on my blog behind a pay wall (which meant it cost $5 to access the post) and then someone copy and pasted my post here and you read my post while understanding it had been taken from behind my pay wall. That would be absolutely unacceptable.
      - jopt 14y ago
        It's debatable whether that's unacceptable. Is it unacceptable to remember something you've read? To tell a friend? To write down and sell it? If you turn a profit? If you don't? If you write by hand, 1 character per second? If you use a machine to do it, 1 million characters per second? Are we allowed to quote? To teach? To paraphrase? To back up? These are hard questions, and you're reducing them to moral absolutes. Make your case without shouting about how you're right.
antihero 14y ago
TBH if artists care about money over music, I'm less likely to like their stuff anyway. There isn't a huge amount of music that costs silly money to produce nowadays, is there? Though there are exceptions - bands like Muse, that need lots of up-front investment to create a huuge amazing stadium show (the costs will probably be recouped from tickets, though).
- jopt 14y ago
  > less likely to like their stuff Quantified this? Or is this something you hope is the case, without really knowing?
  - antihero 14y ago
    I base it on the fact that I genuinely like bands as they are small, and then as they make their stuff more "accessible" after signing a big deal, in order to expand their user base, it loses a lot of appeal for me. I prefer music to be pure and not be changed in order to cater for people who aren't prepared to spend time enjoying it. Each to their own, and if you like mass-appeal stuff, but that's not for me. Similarly, TV shows. Stuff like The Wire, which doesn't patronise the viewer and expects you to pay enough attention to draw your own conclusions, I find much more satisfying than stuff that hands things to you on a plate.
    - jopt 14y ago
      Okay, so how much less likely? I enjoy narrow genres myself, but I haven't actually done the math to see how this would affect artists etc. Have you?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

monsterix 14y ago

Point taken. It's good to see the options coming. Yes, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga are creations using the current technology. Not by suppressing freedom to download, or by penalizing consumers who download, or by asking them to behave properly. I never said artists should release their music for free. You did not read properly.

citricsquid 14y ago
> I never said artists should release their music for free. You did not read properly. Please can you explain what your point is then, I don't quite understand what you're saying if that is the case. > Not by suppressing freedom to download, or by penalizing consumers who download, or by asking them to behave properly. You mean the freedom to take a product without doing whatever the person licensed to distribute it wants (eg: pay $10) like we have to do with every other product?
- monsterix 14y ago
  Well this is the hard problem. To make it convenient and sensible for people to buy/watch movies officially, make it possible to show it off to their friends (Like I have a paid subscription), may be adopt SAAS or provide rented streaming in such a way that people say "we have an official access to hurt locker" or something. If it costs $10 a ticket to watch on a big screen, spend gasoline, travel some distance physically, it can surely cost 1/10th (or less) of that amount per movie and yet return similar profits (by volumes) to the artist. People really don't care about the middlemen. Just a few ideas, but obviously the solution is hard. Yet I believe that teaching manners to people, i.e. annoying the consumers is suicidal.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 14y ago
  Did I took your post (with or without permission) by accessing this page? Such concepts don't make sense for non-scarce goods.
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    I posted here with the understanding I was providing everyone accessing news.ycombinator.com with access to my post. A comparable example would be if I posted this on my blog behind a pay wall (which meant it cost $5 to access the post) and then someone copy and pasted my post here and you read my post while understanding it had been taken from behind my pay wall. That would be absolutely unacceptable.
    - jopt 14y ago
      It's debatable whether that's unacceptable. Is it unacceptable to remember something you've read? To tell a friend? To write down and sell it? If you turn a profit? If you don't? If you write by hand, 1 character per second? If you use a machine to do it, 1 million characters per second? Are we allowed to quote? To teach? To paraphrase? To back up? These are hard questions, and you're reducing them to moral absolutes. Make your case without shouting about how you're right.

antihero 14y ago

TBH if artists care about money over music, I'm less likely to like their stuff anyway. There isn't a huge amount of music that costs silly money to produce nowadays, is there? Though there are exceptions - bands like Muse, that need lots of up-front investment to create a huuge amazing stadium show (the costs will probably be recouped from tickets, though).

jopt 14y ago
> less likely to like their stuff Quantified this? Or is this something you hope is the case, without really knowing?
- antihero 14y ago
  I base it on the fact that I genuinely like bands as they are small, and then as they make their stuff more "accessible" after signing a big deal, in order to expand their user base, it loses a lot of appeal for me. I prefer music to be pure and not be changed in order to cater for people who aren't prepared to spend time enjoying it. Each to their own, and if you like mass-appeal stuff, but that's not for me. Similarly, TV shows. Stuff like The Wire, which doesn't patronise the viewer and expects you to pay enough attention to draw your own conclusions, I find much more satisfying than stuff that hands things to you on a plate.
  - jopt 14y ago
    Okay, so how much less likely? I enjoy narrow genres myself, but I haven't actually done the math to see how this would affect artists etc. Have you?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]