Cayocosta
Boing Boing took time off yesterday from their "directory of wonderful things" theme (and otherwise shilling of co-editor Cory Doctorow's books, while censoring his critics) to attack the "corrupt" congressmen that have supported a new bill designed to reduce music-piracy at universities.
In fact, it was Doctorow himself who threw the devoid of substance, out-of-context tantrum wherein he urged his readership to "remember those names come election time" while resorting to the hackneyed portrayal of an entertainment industry composed of "ailing giants" and dysphemistically rendering its attempt to control piracy as "punish[ing] kids who listen to music."
If that weren't enough, the idea that universities subscribe to an authorized music provider he spun as "piss[ing] away money on a useless service" with music-pirates euphemistically represented as simply "file-sharers."
Sadly, in light of this nascent threat, Doctorow even stooped to the exploitation of low-income children to further facilitate his populist rant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
so if the legislation passes, and a university fails to subscribe to a napster or similar in an attempt to guide students to legal file downloading, you don't think that low-income kids will be affected when financial aide is pulled?
Low-income college kids? What about low-income artists? As usual, they don't exist - and in conveniently overlooking their welfare (as is most always the case in the defense of piracy) all that remains is bigoted, populist, and elitist newspeak.
Artists are people too.
Furthermore, as per Congressman Miller's press release, "Congress has already enacted legislation this year to provide an additional $20 billion in financial aid for students and families over the next five years."
Who knew?
The press release continues:
In addition, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act would:
Streamline the federal student financial aid application to make it easier for all eligible students, especially from low-income households, to apply for financial aid;
Make textbook costs more manageable for students by helping them plan for textbook expenses in advance of each semester;
Expand college access for low-income and minority students by allowing students to receive year-round Pell Grant scholarships and strengthening college readiness programs;
Increase college aid and support programs for veterans and military families to help veterans, active duty military personnel, and their family members attend college and succeed;
Create safer college campuses for students and faculty by developing campus safety and disaster readiness plans for all colleges and helping schools recover and rebuild in the event of a disaster;
Ensure equal college opportunities and fair learning environments for students with disabilities to provide them with the resources and support they need to stay in school and graduate; and
Help strengthen our nation’s workforce and economic competitiveness by boosting science, technology, and foreign language educational opportunities, by providing public service loan forgiveness to encourage and reward students who enter critically needed service fields and by enhancing teacher training and development programs.
dude, my girlfriend is an indie artist trying to make it; if anyone doesn't need the lecture it's me.
even though molly's super talented, as an artist, nothing is guaranteed her, nor should it be.
when it comes down to it, music has been allowed to be reduced to less than a commodity by labels holding fast to $10 albums for 3 good songs.
when they start performing kung-fu (instead of boxing) to use the energy of rabid music fans downloading "illegal" music in a monetization approach, well, then everyone will be better off.
No lecture intended, and yes, I agree everyone would be much better off.
However, what is the solution?
This is the point where the free-music argument stalls because speculation does not constitute a viable business model, and to date there have been no realistic, detailed proposals put forth.
Frankly, selling tee-shirts and passing the hat are not only shortsighted business plans, but outrageously offensive. (As you know.)
For my part, I've at least studied the arguments and presented my editorial opinion as to why these ideas do not hold water.
Moreover; why, after all this time hasn't an internet player rolled out a free-music entity? - Perhaps that in itself is proof enough the concept is flawed. Think about it, venture capital is always flowing for revolutionary tech startups (err... maybe not in this particular case?) and plenty of out-of-work industry professionals are available - so, what's the problem? Why hasn't someone taken the initiative to show the way?
Rather, the armchair-quarterback consensus is to get the major-labels to eat that wild mushroom, and should it turn out to be poisonous; who cares?
nobody's suggesting that the labels eat wild mushrooms, but it would behoove them to experiment a bit outside the boundaries of partitioned meat and potatoes on a plate.
and i'm not necessarily an advocate of music being free either; i just don't buy into the idea that the average album is worth $10 - $15 dollars.
i often pay current market prices for albums to support bands i respect or for music that i highly value, but the majority of big label music is straight crap. the crazy thing about the RIAA persecutions is that they're going after folk for downloading/sharing individual songs. people look at music tracks as copies, like online images.
isn't the denial of reality one definition of insanity?
the RIAA doesn't go after these folk because they're destroying the existing mainstream business model and artists are starving; they go after these folks on principle, chasing after violators of their corporate money's business model -- because if one song is downloaded, then the entire mainstream (big label) structure *could* fall to pieces.
right. it's called change. work with it or become marginalized. not just by "pirates", but by alternative business models, which spring up more and more each day.
i'm a huge fan of lala.com to get music i know i want. i dig amiestreet to expose me to new artists. and i jump between pandora, itunes and last.fm all day.
total cost? $1 per traded album on lala and a few hundred *cents* per month at amiestreet.
reality is evolution, not one-time intelligent design.
and this conversation has very little to do with indie artists -- unless the acts are "indie" because they can't get big labels to promise and pay like they did with so many acts in the past.
you know, before radio died because of corporate greed and mtv sold out to 12 year-olds fantasizing about living in a house with all their friends, the big labels had control over both promotion and distribution.
and then the internet came along. and they fucking slept on the internet like countless other industries who also got jacked in the process.
good luck to them putting the genie back in the bottle by suing into perpetuity and holding higher education hostage to their understanding of justice.
in 10 years, big labels will be as relevant as a cassette tape.
Dear Artist:
Sell tee-shirts, rabbit's feet or Frisbees; sell sex-tapes, pass the hat, tour excessively, sellout to a sponsor, get a day job or whatever; but please let me pay whatever I want (even nothing) for that which you really do best, that which completely defines you, that which you exist for, that which you spend most of your time creating, that over which you sometimes might even find yourself tortured; and above all, that which I love most about you: your music - your creative identity.
Best,
Your biggest fan
just stumbled back upon this conversation. that last comment you made is such a red herring, man
what percentage of a $15 album sold at target do you think actually lands in an artist's pocket? 5% to 10%, at most. the vast majority goes to the record label. and that particular distribution game -- big stores -- is open to label acts only.
what about itunes? same deal. the label brings home the vast majority with the label artist making between %10 and 14%. at least indie acts can sell in that channel.
i'd also argue that the recorded sound of a musician is not:
"[...] that which you really do best, that which completely defines you, that which you exist for, that which you spend most of your time creating, that over which you sometimes might even find yourself tortured; and above all, that which I love most about you: your music - your creative identity [...]"
personally speaking, i value a live show over recorded music any day of the week. and artists put in much more time actually songwriting and composing music than they do in the studio.
but if you're speaking / shilling for the label mentality -- where the vast majority of traditional sales fall -- sure, i get the angle.
Post a Comment