3 ms·

Techdirt leans pro-piracy, just as torrentfreak does. I'll pay for my content in whichever fashion gets the artist paid the most - makes no difference to me.

Techdirt leans pro-piracy, just as torrentfreak does. I'll pay for my content in whichever fashion gets the artist paid the most - makes no difference to me. And I am not just talking about music. TV, Movies, etc. It's content as an entire class. All content companies are getting smashed against the backdrop of piracy. I'll do whatever I can to support content creators.

gjm11 11y ago
> Techdirt leans pro-piracy Does that make it OK for artists to get 2.34% of what listeners pay for the music they make? Or does it make TechDirt's figures wrong? If so, how? > Or were you not paying for anything already, and then came across that info which now justified your position? I am not striking, but I agree with everything s/he wrote. And, as it happens, I do pay for all the music and video and software I acquire. So it is simply not true that holding the opinions s/he expressed is always a rationalization for not liking to pay for things. (And: do you actually have any evidence that striking pirates things rather than paying for them? Or do you just assume that anyone who takes a position opposing yours must be a pirate?)
- walterbell 11y ago
  Is it legal for artists to sell virtual goods directly to fans, or are those rights locked up in record company contracts? That would allow separation of payment from distribution. TPP/TTIP/RECP leaks suggest the criminalization of non-commercial copyright infringement, where prosecution will be possible even if the copyright holder does not want to prosecute, e.g. fanzines. Can we develop a payment mechanism which moves funds from audience to artist for virtual goods, with no exchange of music (which can be obtained on any channel), but which provides a non-forgeable "protection from being prosecuted"? This would return control to the artist. Unbundle the music license payment from music delivery payment.
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  If labels were so abusive artists wouldn't use them. It's not like setting up a label is hard. The reason labels have such high overheads is the same as for movie studios . They subsidise a lot of non-Taylor Swifts music that don't end up being profitable. The costs of the failures end up impacting the profits of the successes. The flip side is - lots of artists get studio time and songwriting time even if they haven't already proven themselves.

gjm11 11y ago

> Techdirt leans pro-piracy Does that make it OK for artists to get 2.34% of what listeners pay for the music they make? Or does it make TechDirt's figures wrong? If so, how? > Or were you not paying for anything already, and then came across that info which now justified your position? I am not striking, but I agree with everything s/he wrote. And, as it happens, I do pay for all the music and video and software I acquire. So it is simply not true that holding the opinions s/he expressed is always a rationalization for not liking to pay for things. (And: do you actually have any evidence that striking pirates things rather than paying for them? Or do you just assume that anyone who takes a position opposing yours must be a pirate?)

walterbell 11y ago
Is it legal for artists to sell virtual goods directly to fans, or are those rights locked up in record company contracts? That would allow separation of payment from distribution. TPP/TTIP/RECP leaks suggest the criminalization of non-commercial copyright infringement, where prosecution will be possible even if the copyright holder does not want to prosecute, e.g. fanzines. Can we develop a payment mechanism which moves funds from audience to artist for virtual goods, with no exchange of music (which can be obtained on any channel), but which provides a non-forgeable "protection from being prosecuted"? This would return control to the artist. Unbundle the music license payment from music delivery payment.
mike_hearn 11y ago
If labels were so abusive artists wouldn't use them. It's not like setting up a label is hard. The reason labels have such high overheads is the same as for movie studios . They subsidise a lot of non-Taylor Swifts music that don't end up being profitable. The costs of the failures end up impacting the profits of the successes. The flip side is - lots of artists get studio time and songwriting time even if they haven't already proven themselves.