seertaak

40 ms·

331.
by seertaak 17y ago
Superficially, I can see why you draw this analogy. Open-source programmers make their code freely available, but companies can still profit by providing support. Everyone happy. But we need to remember why this model works. Programming is
332.
by seertaak 17y ago
All you've pointed out is that the costs of production have fallen. Big deal! It doesn't matter if production prices fall 50 or 80 percent: if revenues are zero, then the musician is still screwed. Whether or not production costs fall to ze
333.
by seertaak 17y ago
I play guitar, sing, and compose for the Signals. ( http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk )
334.
by seertaak 17y ago
> It's happening without artists' consent as we speak. No, that's not "distribution". Suppose I own a shop in a lawless city where police are known not to enforce property rights. I place my fruit on baskets just outside the shop, and a
335.
by seertaak 17y ago
I think the answer already exists, to some extent: it is iTunes. In my opinion, iTunes solves the problem of multiple card detail entry. You enter your details once, and from that point on a single click buys you whatever you want. Anyone w
336.
by seertaak 17y ago
Exactly; the point is not that Zuckerberg came up with something no one else had. The point is that he did it better. Just as Google didn't invent search; they just really focused on it and did it better.
337.
by seertaak 18y ago
> What value do the record companies add to that, which we can't get by other, less harmful means? If you really want to know, look at my posts. I've answered this very question a number of times. Frankly, the fact that you ask it shows
338.
by seertaak 18y ago
No you're not; you're making pointless (albeit funny!) remarks on hacker news. Get back to work! -- oh wait.... doh!
339.
by seertaak 18y ago
> I'd like to see companies considering initial piracy a marketing cost - the people that don't end up buying probably wouldn't have anyway and you'll end up gaining loyal customers who like what they've seen/heard. I'd very much like t
340.
by seertaak 18y ago
No; it's tantamount, upon observing that single programmers can and do form companies, to calling for the death of all software companies that employ more than one person. Like google. Or the pirate bay.
341.
by seertaak 18y ago
> It's not really the music that sends me to TPB; it's movies (which I don't watch all that much anymore nowadays). Do you know any alternatives for those? I use iTunes, from which I watch mostly TV series, occasionally movies. Their se
342.
by seertaak 18y ago
> Record labels promote and distribute music. True, but not exhaustive. As I explicitly mention above, they also find (in some sense, act as a filter) and finance new acts. And, in any case, you seemed to have ignored my point that reco
343.
by seertaak 18y ago
> On the one hand I use The Pirate Bay for my own pleasure sometimes Thanks for your honesty, but really: you shouldn't. Especially if you live in the US, UK, or Germany, there are good, legal alternatives. If you're in Europe, why not
344.
by seertaak 18y ago
> ... without added value. I think this allegation betokens a certain ignorance of how the music industry works. Firstly, producers, recording engineers and assistants, mixing engineers, and mastering engineers certainly do add value --
345.
by seertaak 18y ago
> Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do anything non-trivial without running the risk of being sued for infringing w
346.
by seertaak 18y ago
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying he's not being fleeced because he would make less if his video wasn't on YouTube. That's like saying a sweatshop worker in China is not being fleeced, even if they earn a pittance, because they'd be maki
347.
by seertaak 18y ago
I must have remembered incorrectly. In fact, I think the deal was a flat rate. I don't think it materially changes my argument that Google is getting an amazing deal for streaming these videos, certainly better than radio stations or simila
348.
by seertaak 18y ago
swombat, here are some of the "bad guys" you'd like to see getting "fucked", "going bust", and whose business model is worthy of moral opprobrium: http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/comments.html
349.
by seertaak 18y ago
weavejester, having seen other comments I really appreciate you having an intellectually honest stab at my contention. But I think you're wide of the mark. First off, musicians/songwriters don't expect their creative works to be a perpetua
350.
by seertaak 18y ago
> As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory, You're right. I meant "on the member artists'" behalf; should have been clearer. But my point, that Waterman has ceded the ability to negotiate with YouTube, sti
351.
by seertaak 18y ago
> Why does he deserve royalties? I take it you don't approve of software patents either? In the interest of consistency, that is.
352.
by seertaak 18y ago
You raise an interesting point. I'm not sure what YouTube counts as a "hit" -- it's probably as you say just initiating a "view". Let's assume that only 1% viewed the video 'til the end. That's still 1.5MM full views, for which Mr. Waterman
353.
by seertaak 18y ago
> it might have driven iTunes sales And as I've pointed out elsewhere, more studies have arrived to the opposite conclusion than to this conclusion. Also, again as I've pointed out elsewhere, the notion that YouTube plays drive iTunes d
354.
by seertaak 18y ago
> If you put an app in the app store, you've got a contract with Apple explicitly stating how you share revenue. The PRS and YouTube have an agreement that explicitly states how revenue is shared. So no difference there, your contention
355.
by seertaak 18y ago
Sure, since you say so.
356.
by seertaak 18y ago
I'm pretty sure that had you written a tune that got viewed/listened to 150 odd million times (notwithstanding how god-awful it is!), and you'd received 11 pounds for it, you wouldn't think it was so funny. Imagine if you'd written a game a
357.
by seertaak 18y ago
a) The figure would be 0.022 pence under the current contract, and 0.22 pence under the legally-mandated minimum per-play charge, not 22 pence. b) The argument that Google gives him free publicity depends crucially on the assumption that a
358.
by seertaak 18y ago
Actually, no; the PRS is authorized to negotiate mechanical rights rates on the artists' behalf -- otherwise Waterman would have to sign a contract with each and every local radio station, pub, etc. The PRS negotiated the agreement with Goo
359.
by seertaak 18y ago
> That's a sign of an overinflated industry losing some air. I agree that the CD days are over and that they were indeed an aberration. It's true that the industry will become more lean. Whether it will be good or bad for music is in th
360.
by seertaak 18y ago
Ok, as long as you do, although again, where did the programmers give you the right to enter into a deferred payment purchase, at zero interest? I know that sounds anal, but it's a question of principle for me. I'm sure that if you wrote so

More ›