15 ms·

"If free and open access to all of human knowledge at the push of a button truly prevents our society’s beloved artists, authors, thinkers, and other creative p

"If free and open access to all of human knowledge at the push of a button truly prevents our society’s beloved artists, authors, thinkers, and other creative people from putting food on their tables, then maybe it’s time to rethink how to put food on their tables." This itself nails half of the core of the issue. The other half is getting rid of the middle men, who are now just struggling to justify their existence. Their time will come.

tmh88j 14y ago
> The other half is getting rid of the middle men, who are now just struggling to justify their existence I may be misinterpreting the quote, but it seems like the middle men are entirely the "issue," not the artists and creative people. Artists like Louis CK and Smashing Pumpkins have already proved they can make money without the middle man.
- crdoconnor 14y ago
  Louis CK is able to make it on his own because he's already a big name. He can do without middle men who control the marketing channels. Smaller artists can't - not so easily, anyway.
  - tmh88j 14y ago
    Justin Bieber was a nobody until he put his videos on Youtube. Kendrick Lamar was discovered this way too. It's easier to gain recognition now than ever. If the world enjoys what you produce you don't have to worry as much about a distribution channel like you did 10+ years ago.
    - chaz 14y ago
      Justin Bieber had just 70k YT views [1] before he was discovered by Scooter Braun. He didn't make it big until he was signed with Braun and Usher. 70k views in 2008 wasn't nothing, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume he would have grown to his current 3+ bn views, becoming an international A-lister, and a household name without signing with a major label. YouTube and online help nobodies become somebodies. Labels help somebodies become megastars. The bottom end is rising, and the top end is compressing, but I don't believe we'll ever see them equalize. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2011/02/11/inside-the-brand-of-justin-bieber-an-interview-with-manager-scooter-braun/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2011/02/11/inside-th...
      - tmh88j 14y ago
        >70k views in 2008 wasn't nothing, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume he would have grown to his current 3+ bn views without a major label. You just proved my point that if the world likes what you're doing (70k+ views), you're bound to get a lot of attention more easily. It's also easier to get an initial presence too. Prior to "web 2.0" the chances of him being discovered would be practically non-existent considering he was just a kid doing covers of his favorite songs. Back to the original point; the middle man isn't as crucial as he used to be.
        chaz 14y ago
        I agree with the direction of your points, but not the magnitudes. Justin Bieber, Kendrick Lamar, Smashing Pumpkins, and Louis CK are already big stars who made it largely through the use of labels, and are thus bad examples. Independent artists who have made their success entirely through unsigned online distribution are much smaller in terms of popularity and monetary success. Also, it's unfair to simply assume that labels are middle men and are gatekeepers to success. They're essentially venture capitalists who reap licensing deals in exchange for large marketing investments, while providing production direction (with or without the artist on board). Compare to hands-on tech VCs who invest a lot of capital, own the majority of the equity, and provide product guidance, with or without the founders on board, who might be soundly fired. A solo artist can't really be fired, but band members have been replaced. Labels are indeed becoming less important, but they're far from dead. I don't see them ever completely dying off -- we'll just have more of them (like Google/YT itself), each with smaller wallets. Sorta like larger seed/angel rounds. Any predictions on a Series A crunch ... in music? Maybe it's already happening.
        tmh88j 14y ago
        > Justin Bieber, Kendrick Lamar, Smashing Pumpkins, and Louis CK are already big stars who made it largely through the use of labels, and are thus bad examples. I agree that Smashing Pumpkins and Louis CK were already big stars, and you're right, they don't fit into that category. However, my point was that the initial successes of Justin Bieber and Kendrick Lamar were founded from YouTube videos and without them, they probably wouldn't have been discovered by record labels. Bo Burnham (comedian for those of you who don't know) found success the same way.
duairc 14y ago
"If free and open access to all of human knowledge at the push of a button truly prevents our society’s beloved artists, authors, thinkers, and other creative people from putting food on their tables, then maybe it’s time to rethink how to put food on their tables." Exactly. Full communism now!
- narag 14y ago
  What's more like to full communism, saying contents producers to find a market-friendly method to get paid, or putting a policeman over the shoulder of everybody to watch for draconian IP laws compliance?
  - duairc 14y ago
    I don't understand? "IP laws" are totally incompatible with communism because property itself is totally incompatible with communism. I'm not sure what you mean by "market-friendly" but it sounds like some sort of euphemism?
  - swordswinger12 14y ago
    Well, the latter actually strikes me as more fascistic/authoritarian. In a strict sense it isn't like communism at all. In fact, neither one of these are really communist. Misuse of that word bums me out.
MrScruff 14y ago
That's a nice noble reframing of humanities innate desire to have access to Game of Thrones season 2 without paying for cable. Can I speak as one of the creative people that, you know, actually works to produce the content so many people seem to feel righteously entitled to? If you're going to pirate/copyright infringe, do so, but please stop trying to rebrand it as a freedom of speech issue. It's embarrassing. As I see it, there are four types of people who generally don't pirate content: - The technically illiterate. - People who have made a conscious decision to support the producer of the content. - People who fear enforcement of copyright law. - People who have no interest in the content available. The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation, with the goal of striking back at shadowy 'middle men' being particularly ridiculous.
- belorn 14y ago
  >People who have made a concious decision to support the producer of the content. Pirates are those that proportional spends more money to support artists and producers, than those that do not pirate. Many make very conscious decisions in regard to independent labels, so that money gets funneled to those that need them mostly. As for your comment as a whole, rationalization to explain political motives is as old as politics itself. Worker movement = people who just want more wages and work less. Social reforms = people who want free money. Medical reforms = people who want free medical care. Tax abolition = people want to spend less money on taxes. Green movement = ... Sorry, the argument of rationalization to explain political motives are a horrible bad argument.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    I'm interested in the idea that those who pirate tend also to be those who spend the most. Right now we know that's true and I'd surmise it's because those who pirate are those who are most interested in the medium therefore consume it most in all it's forms. But most people now are those who've grown up with some understanding that music or movies or games are things you might / should pay for. My question is will it continue to be the case that the largest consumers of media continue to be those who actually pay most once you have a generation who've been bought up with torrenting as their primary method of consumption? Essentially are we in an interim space where it sort of works because the core consumer group have an expectation and a behaviour pattern which is a hangover from a previous time but which won't be replicated in the future?
belorn 14y ago
There are many methods to do this. Copyright itself is a privilege granted by the state, and as with any system involving the government, it could be refined to produce better results with less costs. If we want to keep having a system dependent on the state, as which copyright itself is today, we could follow a system of taxes and support artist through grants. It would then follow the same system as with medical research, as tax payers are already paying for that. The majority of medical research are today supported by taxes, and the drug companies would the last people wanting to go pure capitalist system, as that would be billions of less dollars in free R&D. Or we could go with no state involvement at all, in which case music for hire and concerts would become a primary method for artist to put food on the table. You would likely to see more live music, but also less healthy life style (see Troubadour lifestyle). Likely, systems like Flattr and other similar ideas would go large scale to support artist, somewhat like donations to medical research do today.
- VMG 14y ago
  So the state decides which art is to be supported. What could possible go wrong?
  - belorn 14y ago
    Its how medical research money is handled today. Billions of dollars, and it hasn't gone horrible horrible wrong yet has it? There has been several suggested methods on how to measure things like popularity with music, methods that remove any judgment call by some bureaucratic agent by the state. One is to measure a small sample (like with pre-voting polls), an other is to measure repositories, while a third is to only measure current places like radios. All this method need to do is to be better than a state supported monopoly that has managed to give less than 1% of the revenue of copyrighted works. How hard can it possible be to beat that?
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      You can only measure repositories if you have "official" repositories which everybody goes to in order to get content. This would require strong IP laws to enforce. What happens if a lot of stuff gets distributed P2P or via an independent repo who don't want to hand their server logs to the gov? Also medical research still has contentious issues like Stem Cell research etc. And it is easier to justify objectively like "will help X thousand cancer patients". Creative works are more difficult, for example what if somebody wants to make a film that might be perceived to promote racist views? There are certainly people who would not want their tax money spent on that. There would also be people who would see it as an affront to free speech for such a film to not have a fair chance of being made.
wwwtyro 14y ago
Copyright itself appears to be a rethinking of monetizing creativity. The threshold pledge system managed to monetize creativity with no concept of "intellectual property": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system
kyllo 14y ago
Yeah PG wrote an essay about this, he compared the RIAA and MPAA to a restaurant owner trying to charge for smells. Recommended read: http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html

tmh88j 14y ago

> The other half is getting rid of the middle men, who are now just struggling to justify their existence I may be misinterpreting the quote, but it seems like the middle men are entirely the "issue," not the artists and creative people. Artists like Louis CK and Smashing Pumpkins have already proved they can make money without the middle man.

crdoconnor 14y ago
Louis CK is able to make it on his own because he's already a big name. He can do without middle men who control the marketing channels. Smaller artists can't - not so easily, anyway.
- tmh88j 14y ago
  Justin Bieber was a nobody until he put his videos on Youtube. Kendrick Lamar was discovered this way too. It's easier to gain recognition now than ever. If the world enjoys what you produce you don't have to worry as much about a distribution channel like you did 10+ years ago.
  - chaz 14y ago
    Justin Bieber had just 70k YT views [1] before he was discovered by Scooter Braun. He didn't make it big until he was signed with Braun and Usher. 70k views in 2008 wasn't nothing, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume he would have grown to his current 3+ bn views, becoming an international A-lister, and a household name without signing with a major label. YouTube and online help nobodies become somebodies. Labels help somebodies become megastars. The bottom end is rising, and the top end is compressing, but I don't believe we'll ever see them equalize. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2011/02/11/inside-the-brand-of-justin-bieber-an-interview-with-manager-scooter-braun/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2011/02/11/inside-th...
    - tmh88j 14y ago
      >70k views in 2008 wasn't nothing, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume he would have grown to his current 3+ bn views without a major label. You just proved my point that if the world likes what you're doing (70k+ views), you're bound to get a lot of attention more easily. It's also easier to get an initial presence too. Prior to "web 2.0" the chances of him being discovered would be practically non-existent considering he was just a kid doing covers of his favorite songs. Back to the original point; the middle man isn't as crucial as he used to be.
      - chaz 14y ago
        I agree with the direction of your points, but not the magnitudes. Justin Bieber, Kendrick Lamar, Smashing Pumpkins, and Louis CK are already big stars who made it largely through the use of labels, and are thus bad examples. Independent artists who have made their success entirely through unsigned online distribution are much smaller in terms of popularity and monetary success. Also, it's unfair to simply assume that labels are middle men and are gatekeepers to success. They're essentially venture capitalists who reap licensing deals in exchange for large marketing investments, while providing production direction (with or without the artist on board). Compare to hands-on tech VCs who invest a lot of capital, own the majority of the equity, and provide product guidance, with or without the founders on board, who might be soundly fired. A solo artist can't really be fired, but band members have been replaced. Labels are indeed becoming less important, but they're far from dead. I don't see them ever completely dying off -- we'll just have more of them (like Google/YT itself), each with smaller wallets. Sorta like larger seed/angel rounds. Any predictions on a Series A crunch ... in music? Maybe it's already happening.
        tmh88j 14y ago
        > Justin Bieber, Kendrick Lamar, Smashing Pumpkins, and Louis CK are already big stars who made it largely through the use of labels, and are thus bad examples. I agree that Smashing Pumpkins and Louis CK were already big stars, and you're right, they don't fit into that category. However, my point was that the initial successes of Justin Bieber and Kendrick Lamar were founded from YouTube videos and without them, they probably wouldn't have been discovered by record labels. Bo Burnham (comedian for those of you who don't know) found success the same way.

duairc 14y ago

narag 14y ago
What's more like to full communism, saying contents producers to find a market-friendly method to get paid, or putting a policeman over the shoulder of everybody to watch for draconian IP laws compliance?
- duairc 14y ago
  I don't understand? "IP laws" are totally incompatible with communism because property itself is totally incompatible with communism. I'm not sure what you mean by "market-friendly" but it sounds like some sort of euphemism?
- swordswinger12 14y ago
  Well, the latter actually strikes me as more fascistic/authoritarian. In a strict sense it isn't like communism at all. In fact, neither one of these are really communist. Misuse of that word bums me out.

MrScruff 14y ago

That's a nice noble reframing of humanities innate desire to have access to Game of Thrones season 2 without paying for cable. Can I speak as one of the creative people that, you know, actually works to produce the content so many people seem to feel righteously entitled to? If you're going to pirate/copyright infringe, do so, but please stop trying to rebrand it as a freedom of speech issue. It's embarrassing. As I see it, there are four types of people who generally don't pirate content: - The technically illiterate. - People who have made a conscious decision to support the producer of the content. - People who fear enforcement of copyright law. - People who have no interest in the content available. The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation, with the goal of striking back at shadowy 'middle men' being particularly ridiculous.

belorn 14y ago
>People who have made a concious decision to support the producer of the content. Pirates are those that proportional spends more money to support artists and producers, than those that do not pirate. Many make very conscious decisions in regard to independent labels, so that money gets funneled to those that need them mostly. As for your comment as a whole, rationalization to explain political motives is as old as politics itself. Worker movement = people who just want more wages and work less. Social reforms = people who want free money. Medical reforms = people who want free medical care. Tax abolition = people want to spend less money on taxes. Green movement = ... Sorry, the argument of rationalization to explain political motives are a horrible bad argument.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I'm interested in the idea that those who pirate tend also to be those who spend the most. Right now we know that's true and I'd surmise it's because those who pirate are those who are most interested in the medium therefore consume it most in all it's forms. But most people now are those who've grown up with some understanding that music or movies or games are things you might / should pay for. My question is will it continue to be the case that the largest consumers of media continue to be those who actually pay most once you have a generation who've been bought up with torrenting as their primary method of consumption? Essentially are we in an interim space where it sort of works because the core consumer group have an expectation and a behaviour pattern which is a hangover from a previous time but which won't be replicated in the future?

belorn 14y ago

There are many methods to do this. Copyright itself is a privilege granted by the state, and as with any system involving the government, it could be refined to produce better results with less costs. If we want to keep having a system dependent on the state, as which copyright itself is today, we could follow a system of taxes and support artist through grants. It would then follow the same system as with medical research, as tax payers are already paying for that. The majority of medical research are today supported by taxes, and the drug companies would the last people wanting to go pure capitalist system, as that would be billions of less dollars in free R&D. Or we could go with no state involvement at all, in which case music for hire and concerts would become a primary method for artist to put food on the table. You would likely to see more live music, but also less healthy life style (see Troubadour lifestyle). Likely, systems like Flattr and other similar ideas would go large scale to support artist, somewhat like donations to medical research do today.

VMG 14y ago
So the state decides which art is to be supported. What could possible go wrong?
- belorn 14y ago
  Its how medical research money is handled today. Billions of dollars, and it hasn't gone horrible horrible wrong yet has it? There has been several suggested methods on how to measure things like popularity with music, methods that remove any judgment call by some bureaucratic agent by the state. One is to measure a small sample (like with pre-voting polls), an other is to measure repositories, while a third is to only measure current places like radios. All this method need to do is to be better than a state supported monopoly that has managed to give less than 1% of the revenue of copyrighted works. How hard can it possible be to beat that?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    You can only measure repositories if you have "official" repositories which everybody goes to in order to get content. This would require strong IP laws to enforce. What happens if a lot of stuff gets distributed P2P or via an independent repo who don't want to hand their server logs to the gov? Also medical research still has contentious issues like Stem Cell research etc. And it is easier to justify objectively like "will help X thousand cancer patients". Creative works are more difficult, for example what if somebody wants to make a film that might be perceived to promote racist views? There are certainly people who would not want their tax money spent on that. There would also be people who would see it as an affront to free speech for such a film to not have a fair chance of being made.

wwwtyro 14y ago

Copyright itself appears to be a rethinking of monetizing creativity. The threshold pledge system managed to monetize creativity with no concept of "intellectual property": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system

kyllo 14y ago

Yeah PG wrote an essay about this, he compared the RIAA and MPAA to a restaurant owner trying to charge for smells. Recommended read: http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html