5 ms·

OK, so the entertainers of the future will work differently and make less due to the digitization of music. So instead of being famous and having millions of d

by alttab 13y ago

OK, so the entertainers of the future will work differently and make less due to the digitization of music. So instead of being famous and having millions of dollars and a huge tour train, you'll produce music on the cheap or electronically and sell it via you-tube, streaming deals, shows, and direct album sales for the super fans. Innovation always has its side effects good and bad, but those who want to entertain and be famous will still have all the motivation and incentive to be creative and strive for the spotlight. They won't be making off too bad for themselves, either.

csallen 13y ago
Agreed. Just because an industry hit a certain level of profitability doesn't mean it should be guaranteed to do the same indefinitely. If change comes to entertainment than change comes to entertainment.
paulhauggis 13y ago
You are right about innovation... It's side effects will also be increased automation, which means unions shouldn't use the government to inflate wages of jobs that could otherwise be automated with a machine.
wwweston 13y ago
> So instead of being famous and having millions of dollars and a huge tour train, you'll produce music on the cheap or electronically and sell it via you-tube, streaming deals, shows, and direct album sales for the super fans. This isn't a new model. Most artists already rely on both performance and recording revenues (some add licensing and/or merchandising). So we're essentially talking about the old model, except with the apparent proposal that we remove revenue from recordings. That's removing a leg from a stool that's already frequently shaky to begin with, except for mass-market pop acts that have already made it (Iron Maiden is, more or less, one such act). > Innovation always has its side effects good and bad Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh? You can, of course, break eggs without making an omelete, and so far, it looks to me like the instructions for the recipe under discussion stops at cracking them open.
- V-2 13y ago
  http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal
- mcguire 13y ago
  "Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh? "You can, of course, break eggs without making an omelete, and so far, it looks to me like the instructions for the recipe under discussion stops at cracking them open." Wrong question. The correct question is, "How much are you willing do distort the rest of your society in order to support one relatively minor, if wealthy, group of people?" Or possibly, "How much damage do you want to do to other, more important industries in order to protect a small one?"
  - wwweston 13y ago
    I've written elsewhere in this thread about how it seems some of the tech community has been reacting so strongly for so long to the content cartels insistence on copyright over everything that they often assume any defense of copyright/music sales is in service of a draconian tech-crippling regime. Sometimes they even arrive at the complete opposite (and equally incorrect) position that copyright and revenue from it is completely unimportant. I can only assume that's what's going on here, given that nothing I've proposed would reasonably prompt your questions. I suppose I'll respond anyway, though: > How much are you willing do distort the rest of your society in order to support one relatively minor, if wealthy, group of people? Wealthy? I suppose there are some pop acts that make it so big that they become pretty wealthy. These are indeed folks (like Iron Maiden) that could continue to enjoy good business even without much recording revenue at all, but they're no more a representative sample for the sake of discussion here than most hackers are (or ever will be) Mark Zuckerberg wealthy. As it happens, I am willing to distort society a little, in much the same way that the original copyright bargain does, for the same reasons. I think that the norm should remain that recordings are something people should pay for. That's it. No need for SOPA or DRM required everywhere by law or million dollar fines for vigorously prosecuted individual violations. Piracy still exists, and may even be often treated as discussed in the article, but people who do it know it for what it is and that the approved (and supportive) way to participate in getting recordings is to either purchase or download from where they're explicitly free. Probably wouldn't do terrible damage to other "more important" industries.

by alttab 13y ago

csallen 13y ago

Agreed. Just because an industry hit a certain level of profitability doesn't mean it should be guaranteed to do the same indefinitely. If change comes to entertainment than change comes to entertainment.

paulhauggis 13y ago

You are right about innovation... It's side effects will also be increased automation, which means unions shouldn't use the government to inflate wages of jobs that could otherwise be automated with a machine.

wwweston 13y ago

> So instead of being famous and having millions of dollars and a huge tour train, you'll produce music on the cheap or electronically and sell it via you-tube, streaming deals, shows, and direct album sales for the super fans. This isn't a new model. Most artists already rely on both performance and recording revenues (some add licensing and/or merchandising). So we're essentially talking about the old model, except with the apparent proposal that we remove revenue from recordings. That's removing a leg from a stool that's already frequently shaky to begin with, except for mass-market pop acts that have already made it (Iron Maiden is, more or less, one such act). > Innovation always has its side effects good and bad Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh? You can, of course, break eggs without making an omelete, and so far, it looks to me like the instructions for the recipe under discussion stops at cracking them open.

V-2 13y ago
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal
mcguire 13y ago
"Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh? "You can, of course, break eggs without making an omelete, and so far, it looks to me like the instructions for the recipe under discussion stops at cracking them open." Wrong question. The correct question is, "How much are you willing do distort the rest of your society in order to support one relatively minor, if wealthy, group of people?" Or possibly, "How much damage do you want to do to other, more important industries in order to protect a small one?"
- wwweston 13y ago
  I've written elsewhere in this thread about how it seems some of the tech community has been reacting so strongly for so long to the content cartels insistence on copyright over everything that they often assume any defense of copyright/music sales is in service of a draconian tech-crippling regime. Sometimes they even arrive at the complete opposite (and equally incorrect) position that copyright and revenue from it is completely unimportant. I can only assume that's what's going on here, given that nothing I've proposed would reasonably prompt your questions. I suppose I'll respond anyway, though: > How much are you willing do distort the rest of your society in order to support one relatively minor, if wealthy, group of people? Wealthy? I suppose there are some pop acts that make it so big that they become pretty wealthy. These are indeed folks (like Iron Maiden) that could continue to enjoy good business even without much recording revenue at all, but they're no more a representative sample for the sake of discussion here than most hackers are (or ever will be) Mark Zuckerberg wealthy. As it happens, I am willing to distort society a little, in much the same way that the original copyright bargain does, for the same reasons. I think that the norm should remain that recordings are something people should pay for. That's it. No need for SOPA or DRM required everywhere by law or million dollar fines for vigorously prosecuted individual violations. Piracy still exists, and may even be often treated as discussed in the article, but people who do it know it for what it is and that the approved (and supportive) way to participate in getting recordings is to either purchase or download from where they're explicitly free. Probably wouldn't do terrible damage to other "more important" industries.