4 ms·
I see no intention or interest at all in maybe piping back some of that money directly to content creators. I'm aware of the logistical problems that would enta
by mariorz 18y ago
I see no intention or interest at all in maybe piping back some of that money directly to content creators. I'm aware of the logistical problems that would entail, but trying something like that would be truly commendable and even revolutionary (even if insignificant economically).
They seem to present themselves as if they were doing this purely out of love or their beliefs, while serving some of the most atrocious ads on the www.
I see them constantly mocking the media's business interests while they themselves have obviously a big money interest on the matter.
I think that makes them less virtuous.
- Herring 18y agoAll you did was repeat that you'd like them more if they were making less money (or making empty gestures). I don't doubt that you think that, I'm just wondering why. Is any of your content on TPB? Have they stopped you from running adblock? Why would you want them to have less of an incentive to serve you?
- mariorz 18y agoIt would make their attitude seem less hypocritical.
- Herring 18y agoNo, I haven't heard them saying hollywood makes too much money. It's usually something about right to share, or subverting other countries' laws.
- mariorz 18y agoHow about this one, demanding compensation from being blocked in Denmark and using that to start a grant for danish artists. http://blog.brokep.com/2008/04/14/maybe-a-grant/ http://blog.brokep.com/2008/04/14/maybe-a-grant/ Hey brokep: How about doing something similar with the cash from all the porn ads? I also find it unreassuring to see he isn't interested in proposed flat-rate compensation schemes: http://blog.brokep.com/2007/12/06/the-problems-with-a-flatrate-system/ http://blog.brokep.com/2007/12/06/the-problems-with-a-flatra... Maybe he thinks artists should only be compensated for live shows. Those who can't should probably tend bar or something.
- unalone 18y agoYou're misinterpreting his comments. He's saying it would be impossible for his site to find out which artists are being downloaded the most to compensate them. That's a reasonable thing to say considering how many musicians get torrented.
- mariorz 18y agoI can think of ways of estimating even what personal play-time different artist get. Maybe something voluntary a la audio-scrobble. That post isn't just about the technical problems though, for example: "We’re paying a tax to a system not needed anymore. The record industry is passé and we do not need nor want them anymore." I'm not one to defend the decrepit record industry but that's just avoiding the real issue. Is compensating artists considered passe now too?
- unalone 18y agoBut you can't tell how many PIRATED musicians are being scrobbled, can you? There's no way to detect what listens are audio and what listens aren't. I'm not one to defend the decrepit record industry but that's just avoiding the real issue. Is compensating artists considered passe now too? That's regarding the idea of buying records - the money from most of which goes directly to the record industry. Different models work in different ways.
- mariorz 18y ago>But you can't tell how many PIRATED musicians are being scrobbled, can you? There's no way to detect what listens are audio and what listens aren't. Well in the proposed flat-rate scenario there would be no need for distinction. >That's regarding the idea of buying records - the money from most of which goes directly to the record industry. Different models work in different ways. The post was talking about the flat-rate scenario not buying records, in any case it's obvious the record industry model is dead as it currently exists. That doesn't mean we shouldn't think about viable ways of compensating artists.