3 ms·

One could argue similar on wine. Only a very small subset of people can actually detect the provenance. Most of us can't. There is a big gap between trained

One could argue similar on wine. Only a very small subset of people can actually detect the provenance. Most of us can't. There is a big gap between trained Sommelier and so-called expert. They may sound the same, which makes it confusing. A slight digression in the topic of music, I recall reading (in Freakonomics or Gladwell?) a study which showed that people tend to like music purely because they hear it more often. In essence, there isn't an objective standard.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago
This is one reason why I think copyright needs reformed. We made the Beatles famous by playing their records all the time, we (the public) should get some recognition for that in terms of shortened terms for popular works.
- VLM 13y ago
  I think that may have some negative system gaming outcomes, like playing a "sure to be a success" song on repeat from 2am to 6am every morning so that you don't have to pay royalties on it for the next 40 years. With a very large number of stations being owned by a very small number of players this kind of "cooperation" in a market is inevitable. The primary effect of this game would be a substantial reduction in the diversity of music, because off times which could have introduced new(er) sounds are now channel-stuffed with top40 to eliminate their copyright before the top40 becomes an oldie. Also if only top40 music is free, competitive pressure will annihilate all other forms of music because they would cost money. This also applies to retail sales, why pay $15 for something new when you could pay $10 for something popular. So two forces acting together means you'd end up with zero choices for music. However I'm not convinced that the elimination of the Music Industry would be bad for Music. Even if it creates a wasteland, what lives in wastelands tends to be interesting.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Free and out of copyright are two very different things.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago

This is one reason why I think copyright needs reformed. We made the Beatles famous by playing their records all the time, we (the public) should get some recognition for that in terms of shortened terms for popular works.

VLM 13y ago
I think that may have some negative system gaming outcomes, like playing a "sure to be a success" song on repeat from 2am to 6am every morning so that you don't have to pay royalties on it for the next 40 years. With a very large number of stations being owned by a very small number of players this kind of "cooperation" in a market is inevitable. The primary effect of this game would be a substantial reduction in the diversity of music, because off times which could have introduced new(er) sounds are now channel-stuffed with top40 to eliminate their copyright before the top40 becomes an oldie. Also if only top40 music is free, competitive pressure will annihilate all other forms of music because they would cost money. This also applies to retail sales, why pay $15 for something new when you could pay $10 for something popular. So two forces acting together means you'd end up with zero choices for music. However I'm not convinced that the elimination of the Music Industry would be bad for Music. Even if it creates a wasteland, what lives in wastelands tends to be interesting.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Free and out of copyright are two very different things.