Anyone got a link to an article of bill gates calling the internet a fad.
TBH Spotify's service is financially unsustainable even given how little recompense they're giving the labels, one day soon it will either sell out for a lump sum to a media-biz cretin, or it will disappear into a pile of its own debts. Yes it's true that those labels who are licensing their music to Spotify are doing it for peanuts, but you'll notice that some prominent artists with famously favourable contracts aren't on there at all. Unfortunately hardly anybody is in a position to negotiate contracts like that.
The labels do make massive profits from holding rights, but artists can benefit from the same laws if only they don't sign their works over to third parties.
Writing a good song very rarely takes "minutes". Arranging a good song for a given ensemble typically takes hours, if not days. Producing a potential hit recording of that song - again - typically takes a couple of full days of studio time.
For all the bullshit you talk about having worked in the music biz, you clearly have absolutely no idea about how music is made, the expertise required or the expense involved in getting your music to market. I've worked in touring bands, and as a studio musician, as a studio engineer and producer, and as a promoter. I've worked in pretty much every aspect of the creation and production of popular music (and in other forms of music) and it's obvious to me that you have absolutely no idea about the expertise and experience required to produce a quality recording of a quality song.
I'm resigned to conclude, once again, that you're a ****ing idiot and you're arguing about something you don't understand even in the most basic terms.
But that's how all your contributions work out in the end isn't it? I don't know why you bother.
I see. You see your revenue streams drying up because the market is fast moving away from your expertise and you're getting worried. Quite a typical reaction. You see the tide turning and rather than adapt you're stuck in the 'same old way'.
Now please answer my point. Why is it OK for musicians to profit from using a musical system they did not create nor own.
The chromatic scale and 12 bar blues for example is the system, the design, that thousands of songs have been written using, and billions of revenue raised. Had these systems been created today I am fairly confident I could get some intellectual property protection over those musical systems. That would have limited musical development quite severely. I could make damn well sure had I designed them your studio and music work would have to use a different system (and struggle).
So why is it OK for a musician to rock up with a guitar with a bunch of chords and keys and musical systems he/she had absolutely NO influence over their creation. YET, they can make millions using those systems? That's the inherent, and rather telling inconsistency/hypocrisy in your argument. You like intellectual property ONLY when it suits you!
Why is it ok for musicians across the world to 'steal' a system and profit from it?
Or will you just throw a personal insult rather than actually face the question in hand? Faced with your own hypocrisy I guess it will be former.
Amen to that. But the thread isn't about the masses of dullards that decide who gets rich
What the hell are you smoking? Seriously, I didn't think it was possible to create such a ludicrous statement. Yes. People invented paintbrushes, and canvas. Pretty much every commodity has components of which it consists, props to you for figuring that out. Great work! Green and red exist, and many many paintings use them therefore paintings are irrelevant now, and we can steal them however we want. Oh wait, whoever invented the wheel should be collecting royalties in his grave since many devices use them right? :doh:
Just because music isn't tangible like a piece of fruit, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Why not go and plagiarize books - just because that guy put words together in a language, doesn't mean he has any rights to it... after all, words have been around for ages remember? Go ahead, steal it! In fact, rewrite it and resell it! See how far that gets you.
...
Again, this is so bizarre I don't even know where to start. This is either a pretty stubborn troll attempt or you're delusional. Music is a form of emotional expression, not a "device". With your twisted logic, whoever made the first angry face in a live theatre performance should also be collecting a royalty in the grave every time someone makes a mad face on screen... If you don't get that it's no wonder your music "experience" is past tense. Sure a minor triad evokes a type of emotional response in most people, so you can make it "technical" to a point just like the color red psychologically can make people agitated. Doesn't mean it's some patentable device.
Kev is not being a hypocrite in any sense of the word, I'd wager that you're just a lowly thief trying to justify your gigs of stolen goods, and you can't.
Just when you thought the bizarre world of Intrepid couldn't get any more ridiculous........ 
@The Moose - If you took your head out of your arse for a moment you'd know my argument against intellectual rights is not ridiculous at all. It's quite a well known debate against government-backed monopolies. Hardly ridiculous. It's even on the wiki page for intellectual rights if you took the time to actually look into the matter.
These laws, just like the ones that saw the banks bailed out, are designed to protect only the very wealthy.
These laws, just like the ones that saw the banks bailed out, are designed to protect only the very wealthy.
No I do not illegally download music. I use Spotify and listen to a lot of local music which the artists distribute for free anyway because that's the only way to get heard. Obviously a pay wall is a very restrictive thing for a new band.
I say we take all the music from Interprid he has in his posession. We'll also take his TV, Radio and Computer...
Then we'll leave him with a bunch of instruments, a copy of the chromatic scale and a few music theory books.
After all, it can't be that hard, somebody already invented all the rules, he just needs to grab the instruments and start copying some intellectual property, then he'll have music again.
Since it doesn't take time, skill and devotion to play or produce music, it won't be a problem for him to recreate all his favourite tunes.
Then we'll leave him with a bunch of instruments, a copy of the chromatic scale and a few music theory books.
After all, it can't be that hard, somebody already invented all the rules, he just needs to grab the instruments and start copying some intellectual property, then he'll have music again.
Since it doesn't take time, skill and devotion to play or produce music, it won't be a problem for him to recreate all his favourite tunes.
Excellent!
Come on Alan, it only takes a few minutes to write, record and produce a hit single. By the end of the day you could have reproduced the whole top 40. Get cracking!
Oh and to answer your stupid question that you are so bizarrely insistent about, not that I want to put too much effort into that: Copyrights expire. And look up "orphan works". And stuff. There.
It seems that you're outraged by the idea of a few people exploiting copyright law to make a lot of wealth. Take my word for it, very few of those people are musicians. And very few of those who are musicians are simply "lucky". OK so there's U2 and Madonna...
A vulgar display of arrogance.
The musical scales and everything are tools. By, the keys sounded different 100 years ago, and different 200 years ago and so on. They have evolved. There isn't one inventor. But the pitch of the A has become higher the last years, the relations between the notes have changed. In fact, one that is pretty much not used at all and will sound dissonant to most people is the natural relations of notes. That's where it started.. Invented by physics!
It's the same as people who use a computer to do their job. No, they didn't invent that, but they use it as a tool.
I do agree that most of the intellectual property is actually owned by publishers. Publishers can't control their 'property' any more because it's so simple to copy the music. They have become useless, because they are not needed any more in order to distribute the music. So that part of the industry is now slowly dying and they all the actions they take are just a symptom of them dying.
In most countries it takes 70 years after the death of the author before their invention/product/music becomes public domain. Disney want to stretch this because Micky Mouse is soon becoming PD and of course they want exclusive rights because they want to make money. It's commercial business, simple as that. But mister Disney himself is long way dead, so why should Micky Mouse still make money?
I think things should become PD as soon as the author dies, after all, the author won't make any more money..
But musicians should be able to get money by making their music, otherwise they wouldn't be able to make the music they make!
@ Intrepid, new systems are being invented every day.. Especially in the 70's people started to think of new systems. None of these are protected. Think of people like Ligeti, Stockhausen, Boulez, Xenakis. Why are they not protected? Because they are tools.
It's the same as people who use a computer to do their job. No, they didn't invent that, but they use it as a tool.
I do agree that most of the intellectual property is actually owned by publishers. Publishers can't control their 'property' any more because it's so simple to copy the music. They have become useless, because they are not needed any more in order to distribute the music. So that part of the industry is now slowly dying and they all the actions they take are just a symptom of them dying.
In most countries it takes 70 years after the death of the author before their invention/product/music becomes public domain. Disney want to stretch this because Micky Mouse is soon becoming PD and of course they want exclusive rights because they want to make money. It's commercial business, simple as that. But mister Disney himself is long way dead, so why should Micky Mouse still make money?
I think things should become PD as soon as the author dies, after all, the author won't make any more money..
But musicians should be able to get money by making their music, otherwise they wouldn't be able to make the music they make!
@ Intrepid, new systems are being invented every day.. Especially in the 70's people started to think of new systems. None of these are protected. Think of people like Ligeti, Stockhausen, Boulez, Xenakis. Why are they not protected? Because they are tools.
^good post, that.
it's up to artists to find unique values in their creation, it is simply naiveness that one will assume a certain business model will stay the same forever, many people are indeed aware of that and are finding new ways to generate income - which is not an issue of morality. the music industry exists because people can earn money from it, simple as that.
Radiohead put their CD online without a listed price, and actually Prince himself has distributed free copies of his album in millions at a time as well, it is more and more obvious that people will only pay as much for music as they think it is worth, if artists are mega rich because people like their work, then imo no shame on them.
it's up to artists to find unique values in their creation, it is simply naiveness that one will assume a certain business model will stay the same forever, many people are indeed aware of that and are finding new ways to generate income - which is not an issue of morality. the music industry exists because people can earn money from it, simple as that.
Radiohead put their CD online without a listed price, and actually Prince himself has distributed free copies of his album in millions at a time as well, it is more and more obvious that people will only pay as much for music as they think it is worth, if artists are mega rich because people like their work, then imo no shame on them.
Anyone who finishes a post with "Game, Set and Match", particularly on separate lines, is clearly losing the argument.
Why should we pay engineers for making a building/bridge/stadium using basic rules of engineering that have existed forever? Why should people like you, who teach children how to drive rental karts, be paid when you're just using basic laws of physics? Why should ANYONE get paid using your system?
Remember Alan, we have yet to see anything good from you. You never contributed to the LFS community (you didn't even buy your licence). You've never done anything in the real world that we know about - no racing results, no actually useful information you've given to someone in need. You appear to have no discernable talent in the world. So it's understandable you fail to realise that people with talent deserve to be paid for making use of it, whether it be someone who's good at repairing roads, design stadiums or providing entertainment.
I cannot see why you think musicians don't deserve any income, but you're happy to be paid doing whatever menial job it is you actually do (I assume menial due to aforementioned lack of talent, except reading and repeating nonsense from whichever newspapers and magazines you read).
Intrepid conveniantly has 'experience' in every field discussed, push him to prove it however...
I have yet to see his "3D animation intro" which he claimed took him 30mins and apparently better than what a paid designer can do.....
What!
Reminds me of the 'Autogyro' bloke over on F1technical, who supposedly has this wonderful transmission concept and enters into extremely lengthy arguments with the forum about it, amongst other things such as his involvement with important figures including Ron Dennis. Just goes to show why the internet should be taken with a ladle of salt because its full of gobshite.
Although saying that I think I've come across a certain person's posts on another forum before where they are much more mild mannered. Perhaps LFSforum brings out the worst in people.
It's the waiting for a heavy, FWD, electronic-nanny-laden car that everyone will get bored of in a couple weeks. It gets to you.
BlueFlame?
It definitely isn't me. Ask Al Heeley, he knows I am an irrepressible wanker on every forum I use.
True, well then there is also the promise of improved physics (which no doubt people will whinge about) and Rockingham.
But then it's only a Scirocco, if it was a 70s F1 mod or even an earlier generation Scirocco then I'd be jumping up and down and drooling.
Not quite
Still you make us laugh, carry on.
This forum does make people act worse though because of the subject matter, obviously a forum on something like say... stamp collecting is always going to be less heated than a forum on competetive gaming and racing.
It's more and more obvious that people will only pay what they think music is worth when they can't steal it anonymously with 30 seconds of effort.
Nobody needs to evaluate whether or not to buy a CD anymore therefore saying that somehow this "new business model" is condusive to people deciding what it's worth is nonsensical by it's very nature. So is calling it a "business model".
How do you think ANY industry would do when people are basically handed the ability to either procure any goods for free, or purchase them?
I was only suggesting it is happening on some scale, not that it IS the business model of the future. And keep in mind album sales isn't the only income for artists, if anything public performance and the copyrights from public display is where the real money is, it is not entirely impossible that an artist can survive without revenue from album sales. Actually like in Hong Kong, when sales are so low, selling albums is almost considered non-profitable. If you think about how difficult it is to stop pirating songs, isn't it simple logic to find income on other aspects of the product which is much harder to reproduce? You can fight piracy, but it is not going to be eliminately entirely and there is a point when the money poured into battling it overrides the sales recovered.
Radiohead didn't publicize how much revenue they got from "In the Rainbows" under the pay as you wish plan, so there isn't any real figures. But I don't see why the music industry can't change its reliance on album sales.
Radiohead didn't publicize how much revenue they got from "In the Rainbows" under the pay as you wish plan, so there isn't any real figures. But I don't see why the music industry can't change its reliance on album sales.
To be honest though if I had recorded In Rainbows I would've been giving it away free too, Radiohead should give up being experimental now, they're rubbish at it. 
Luckily you didn't. We don't need another 13 in a dozen band...
Well that explains it all. Again.
Prince: "The internet's completely over."
(80 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG