Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
Nope but ask me again in 5 years when its been reworked 500 times by smart management
That's not much of an analysis or an answer.
you could simply say you have no idea how things will go, it's too soon to call.
-
Kitty hawk lead to trans atlantic flight but left as it was it didn't get you from new york to london or anywhere near it.
directing such a comparison to my comments is miles off base.Which is my point exactly. And we've had no experience of the business models that exist or will exist in the world to come. We are re-writing everything at the moment and are in the early stages, in every field, of a revolution as big as the wheel.
You seem to be trying to fit the past into the future and it doesn't wash anymore. The joy of Radiohead, Eno / Byrne and so many others working as they are is that they are thinking outside the square and have realised that the old is truly. They may not have the answers yet but its a crawl in the direction that things may go.
Why are we discussing In Rainbows anyway, it feels like a lifetime ago now. It inspired so much more, and that is the point you are missing Rob. Outside the fact that it worked for the band, that was only ever the point. It was never about and grand desire to define models.
Even the stuff that was pinched peer 2 peer is a part of why it worked.
I'm done with Radiohead.
-
You seem to be trying to fit the past into the future and it doesn't wash anymore.
you're assuming that music sales actually matters on a global scale and will redifine how the the world does business. That's a big ask.
another possibility is that music may cease to matter. houses, cars food, and socks will go on being sold exactly as they have been using the past tried and true method and music and media will simply luck out.
That's another possibility isn't it?Being involved in media and media distribution it's tempting to think that what we do really matters to people but even in our own life time we've seen music go from being a life focusing thing, all consuming, to having not really much to say, a mild diversion.
community dances used to be all the rage back in our parents day, not so much now.video games, souped up cars and gang warfare have more appeal to the next generation. maybe recorded music will just be marginalised, only important to aging old fogies who will slowly die out.
It was never about and grand desire to define models.
that's might brave of you to speak on behalf of everyone involved in the concept from raioheads perspective. Are you sure you can say on behalf of their entire team that none of them were hoping they'd see a solid move toward a viable stable model, embraced by a majority of music listeners?
I'd counter that by saying there were a lot of people looking to the model to work successfully so they could move over to using it. Are you going to deny that?
We're talking about in rainbows cos you're making statements about its resounding success without acknowledging its comparative success in the world of music sales models.
all you've got to do is acknowledge the other side of the argument and it all moves on :)
come on fonzie, do it.
-
another possibility is that music may cease to matter. houses, cars food, and socks will go on being sold exactly as they have been using the past tried and true method and music and media will simply luck out.
That's another possibility isn't it?The way all those things are being sold, manufactured, researched and administered in the last decade have changed dramatically in the past decade, in a way they haven't since their inception so I'm not sure why music should be the exception. Especially as the form it exists in has completely changed. Not just altered but radically changed.
that's might brave of you to speak on behalf of everyone involved in the concept from raioheads perspective. Are you sure you can say on behalf of their entire team that none of them were hoping they'd see a solid move toward a viable stable model, embraced by a majority of music listeners?
Yep, because they repeatedly said so.
“It's not supposed to be a model for anything else. It was simply a response to a situation. We're out of contract. We have our own studio. We have this new server. What the hell else would we do?"
Simply really.
-
Mr Grigg, you have the patience of a saint, or at least a practising Buddhist..
-
Simply really.
ok, that's conveniently one person who wants to make himself look good. the question was, do you think all people involved were looking at it from a self serving perspective or were perhaps some of those people interested in seeing how the public would react to this model. I don't see why you're so interested in sugar coating it cos tom wants to look good.
why are you ignoring the plethora of other people who were seriously interested in it succeeding, definitely some people in the management camp would have been over the moon if it had proved people were prepared to cough up cash of their own free will.you're good at evading the intent of the question as you did with this one
are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the returns diminished?
since you're the one championing the radiohead model please prove it has been a roaring success for the people who have used it in their wake. If not then could you see your way to acknowledging that as a model its benefit is purely novelty and promotional?
you seem to be trying to make me say something I'm not. I'm not trying to say radiohead didn't pull some benefit from it, i'm looking at the bigger picture and commenting on that. you appear to be saying over and over that the bigger picture is irrelevant, its all about radiohead. I don't even like the band any more,
and how have the sales of socks and cars change much past the "I have a product you give me money for it model"? sure there's different ways of promoting them but the model remains the same. none of those products have had the same upheaval as media. my point was they have essentially remained the same (ie cash for product which we can stop you taking by keeping it in a secure location) where as media has lost its ability to maintain that model.
one of the possible outcomes for media distribution is it could go belly up. its possible, is that so hard to admit?
-
ok, that's conveniently one person who wants to make himself look good. the question was, do you think all people involved were looking at it from a self serving perspective or were perhaps some of those people interested in seeing how the public would react to this model.
No, it's not just one person, it's the person who drove this. Rob this is getting silly. It seems we've been over this 1000 times and it's just looping over and again. No-one has evaded anything. It starts to get ludicrous when you are saying that Radiohead are trying to 'make themselves look good' esp as they've said the same thing from day one repeatedly.
Best we leave it.
-
No-one has evaded anything.
yet again you didn't answer the question relating to your claim. it goes toward the whole giving it away is the way forward argument.
a simple yes or no will do.
are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the returns diminished?
It starts to get ludicrous when you are saying that Radiohead are trying to 'make themselves look good' esp as they've said the same thing from day one repeatedly.
if you're going to make these statements you've got to back em up.
I haven't read anywhere that radiohead said prior to the figures being in that this was a marketing concept to promote their album.Artist frames events to make themselves look good? yeah, where ever did I get a concept like that from? Though I appreciate the use of the word ludicrous in any sentence its hardly fitting to critque my comment which is pretty much stateing the bleeding obvious. yes its true artists and infact any media figures do infact put a positive spin on most things they do cos surprise surprise it benefits their career. And Tom York is nothing if not a smart careerist.
and back to my original point which was a direct comment on your blog, the statement
Radioheads view point was the only one that mattered.
That statement is correct if you're a member of radiohead or chairman of their fan club but if you're anyone else radiohead's singular success is not of interest if you're interested in the bigger picture. The music industry in general isn't interested in radiohead selling a swag of their one album, they're interested in how that new model which everyone including you (you've gone on record as saying giving away your music is the best thing to do for a band) said was the way to go actually works out in the long run.
Radiohead would have been singing a different tune altogether if 90% of people who downloaded their album paid $10 for it and everyone went to their website to grab it instead of bit torrenting it.
It'd be "our fans respect us and what we do and music is all hugs and community, we had faith in the inherent decency of human nature etc etc,
But that didn't happen so its a different story isn't it.
This is only going 1000 times cos you're arguing around the point.
if you give me an answer to my direct question on your statement
are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the returns diminished?
and acknowledge there are other interests who's view point matter in a social experiment such as the pay what you like business model then we're all sweet, or you could keep diverting and misdirecting so sacha can say how patient you are, again.
2 simple points and it all goes away :)
-
Radiohead would have been singing a different tune altogether if 90% of people who downloaded their album paid $10 for it and everyone went to their website to grab it instead of bit torrenting it.
Rob, if you understand anything about what they wanted to do, you'd get that the torrent was a part of the success. They said before it was out..take if from here, take it from anywhere, pay what you like. And if you want to confirm both that and work out what Tom Yorke was saying before, google. It's not hard to find. Or try this story about how it did change things. The point you miss is that it was never about models or any other word that equates to that, it was about thinking outside the square, about being innovative and it worked. You are asking the wrong questions.
2 simple points and it all goes away :)
For me it has already. How many times do we have to go over the same ground. Finis.
-
For me it has already. How many times do we have to go over the same ground. Finis.
and yet here you are again, reiterating unproven points and still not answering the simplest of simple questions.
I already know the answer.
"trent reznor expresses disappointment,"
"x band gets no millage from an already used novelty."why was it so difficult for you to say, "yes it worked for radiohead, no its not working as well for anyone else"
Why can't you bring yourself to acknowledge that simple point.
if it was any different you'd be linking to the article about the success stories, but you're not.
you're talking in circles and saying I'm asking the wrong questions. That one question is the one I want the answer too now.
I'll get to the others later.Why do we have to sugar coat these things.
eno/byrne just invented myspace, again.
It's not that exciting.yeah I get you've got to think out side the square, its not like there's any choice in the matter, but we could do with an element of 'down to earth emperors new clothes' analysis on this instead of the "radiohead solve everything, problem over" slant on this stuff.
People without any more insight than what they read on your page take it at face value and spout it out in ever diminished forms. I've read a few articles trumpeting these 'developments' as the be all and end all solutions to this stuff, the tide is turning, the sun is coming up, and quite simply on the coal face nothing has change.
I get that you dig radioheads little game, you love that shit, but surely you can see how it looks from other perspectives?
what you're essentially saying with your think outside the square comment is that we'll need a different angle for most every new release, that's a lot of angles. That's not a very stable playing field at all.
-
-
xkcd today
lol.
-
ambiguous,
nice.... -
Here's another interview/discussion with Prof Lessig (& rambling conversation thereafter), this time offering a bit more thought regarding Lessig's apparent unwillingness to address the problems that have been pointed out regarding remixing.
I've now read/explorered a bit more of Andrew Dubber's newmusicstrategies and newradiostrategies, both of which would have probably been a good place to start, rather than end (regardless of view).
-
here's an amusing example of brandjacking that sees Louis Vuitton claiming intellectual property infringement (ok Trademark infringement specifically).
other examples from here.
-
ISP filtering requirements seems to be dropping out of the list of demands from the RIAA and the MPAA are making similar noises, though the threat of the (peer-to-peer) filtering-big-stick remains.
-
ISP filtering requirements seems to be dropping out of the list of demands from the RIAA and the MPAA are making similar noises, though the threat of the (peer-to-peer) filtering-big-stick remains.
it reads to me like they're getting the foot in the door with a 'we only want to write polite emails' angle and once they're in there with access to whats being shared on line and have a feel for the situation they'll move forward with either filtering or prosecution.
The peer to peer filtering thing is already in force in a number of countries and through an expanding bunch of local isp's. data encoding helps to negate some but not all isp's attempts, but encoding slows down transfer and uses a lot of processing power on your computer.
-
The peer to peer filtering thing is already in force in a number of countries and through an expanding bunch of local isp's
Got any eg's to provide links to?
The Copyright disucssion has been raging in recent weeks over at one of Dubber's (growing number of) sites.
Currently what is occupying my mind regarding this subject is the process being proposed to deal with infringement, being the ISP removing connectivity.
The way infringement is dealt with is perhaps best based on the way we deal with traffic offenses...(IMO)
Warnings, fines, license suspension, vehicle impound and eventually court appearances are all ways in which traffic offenses ranging from the minor to the severe are dealt with.
Warnings, fines, tiered abatement of connection speeds, computers impounded and court appearances for severe or recalcitrant infringers are all ways in which Copyright violation (via filesharing) should perhaps be dealt with.At first glance, perhaps you like me, you don’t think that the first-cab-off-the-rank should be suspending access automatically. Severing the link between ISP’s and their customers is in most cases an undesirable step, though I do think that as part of range of measures terminating connectivity is a valid step and/or option.
To suspend connectivity in all cases of alleged infringement, would be similar to requiring license suspension for all alleged traffic infringements. Where an infringement is serious, or a series of infringements cumulatively sufficiently serious, then and only then should the suspension of services occur if we attempt to follow the example of traffic safety.
Some questions and notions to consider.
So should a minor infringement warrant a trip to the courts to resolve, or should it be more like dealing with a traffic offense?
What is the range of remedies that should be made available for infringement of intellectual property rights by filesharing and what standards are of evidence is required?
Who sets the ranges and determines the levels of seriousness of infringement and what is the process to ensure that process is reasonable?
How to manage the task of identifying legitimate filesharing and illegitimate filesharing?
Who are the parties that should be able to identify infringement, what is process for vetting those parties should exist and what process of appeal should exist?
Do we really want to create what seems to be a far from insignificant amount of bureaucracy?
How does that additional bureaucracy get funded?
Do other options (such as just cutting off connectivity when an allegation is made) start looking a bit more attractive/reasonable in light of some of these questions?
Are there other options that out to be suggested & considered? -
The peer to peer filtering thing is already in force in a number of countries and through an expanding bunch of local isp's
just the examples I've already given you. xnet's naked broadband filters Vuse peer to per completely. you get about a minute and then it shuts down your connection completely until you turn Vuse off.
Slingshot on my one try on their network did likewise.
xtra filters un encrypted Peer to peer.judging by xnet's approach it is possible to shut down peer to peer. just epends on who's up for doing it.
I've read similar comments from people encountering similar overseas.
I thought this thread was long winded and boring, dubber's one is hilarious.
-
apparently the dubbster is saying that giving music away is not in fact a business model but promotion. I'm pretty sure we were already aware of that concept in other fields (thank you unknown shampoo company for the free samples).
so glad we've got that sorted. now we can give up on the whole "humans are inherently honest so don't worry, be happy and let the media flow free" spiel. -
Dubber's piece begins (for those who haven't gone there):
1) You’re not giving away music, you’re giving away RECORDINGS of your music;
2) Don’t try to make money from your music, make money BECAUSE of your music;
3) Economics works differently for bits than it does for atoms.
That's a pretty good summary, including the last point.
-
1) You’re not giving away music, you’re giving away RECORDINGS of your music;
that's pretty meaningless.
its not necessarily 'your music for a start, it could be written by someone else and its merely your version of it.
it does nothing to address the issue that the recording IS the product in many cases.
Dubbers a radio lecturer at Birmingham uni, he's not managing a company that is putting his ideas into practice with stunning results. until he puts his own ideas into practice and buys that Mediterranean retreat with the profits its just hot air. -
-
A company putting these ideas into practice
Not that I'm belittling the contribution of good thinking as opposed to doing more of the same old things as the world changes around us.
As Mr Grigg noted a page ago:We are re-writing everything at the moment and are in the early stages, in every field, of a revolution as big as the wheel.
For those who are interested in that, I recommend Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody as a pleasant summary. Please chip in with other good references.
-
sorry I should have been more specific.
putting his ideas to practice in a regular and repeatable way. its all very well to be radiohead and use their gimmick first but lets see it happen again and again.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.