Posts by Paul Litterick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Answer number Two: I object to the life plus seventy years copyright protection; I do not see why descendants should benefit from Grandpa's work. I also agree with your statement beginning "I'm in favour of limiting the ability ..."
But I think artists and their publishers need some protection from operators like Pirate Bay. It is not enough to expect artists to produce low-budget work and accept marginal returns. That will kill a lot of media, particularly high-investment work like orchestral music.
-
Paul Litterick, you asked for examples of musical artists who have prospered in the modern world, without the assistance of major labels, we gave some examples. What do you make of those examples?
Sorry sir, I had to sleep. I think those artists have been adept at making use of digital opportunities - reaching wider audiences without the benefit of major label support. I don't think they could be used as an argument for unregulated downloading. People can and do download without any intention of buying music, attending gigs or buying t-shirts. I think it very difficult to establish what effect that downloading has overall or in particular sectors. I suspect younger people download and much of the purchasing comes from older customers. I also suspect that people who like niche music genres are more likely to support the acts they like with purchases than do mainstream listeners.
I wonder what effect downloading has on smaller labels - the likes of Arch Hill - which do a good job in nurturing talent but need the income to keep going.
Speaking of arch, I for one welcome Gianni's comments.
-
None of Simon's examples convinces me of the virtues of downloading. Independent labels, label-free artists, review sites all use Internet, but they are very different from unauthorised downloads. They either allow the artists to market themselves or provide marketing. Unauthorised download facilities provide nothing to the artist directly, and the indirect benefits are disputable.
-
Which recording artists and songwriters are benefiting? This question is not rhetorical; I ask it in all innocence. I know that Radiohead's pay-what-you-want offer did them a lot of good, but the band was already established, by the old system. Has anyone become successful without the help of a label and largely through a web presence?
-
Simon, I am not asking for any pass; I merely observed that much of the criticism of Allen had sexist overtones. The simple fact of the matter is that she is entitled to her royalties, which she is denied by people stealing her music.
-
The way Lily Allen was treated for saying that filestealing hurts new artists was just awful.
Word. The worst part of it was the obvious sexism: that she was a silly little girl speaking out of turn.
-
Am I the only one who hears the phrase 'historic fiction' and thinks of the lovechild of Bryce Courtenay and Jeffrey Archer?
No, you are not. The mania for historic fiction, even among literary authors, is depressing. What happened to now? Why do authors like Ihimaera and McEwan have to write books that require research and the use of other people's writing? Had they stuck to writing contemporary fiction they would have done so in their own words and not become plagiarists.
-
Matthew, get real; customers are not screaming for legitimate product. Non-customers are taking stuff for nothing, stuff they would never pay for. People are carrying thousands of songs on their iPods, stolen media which they would never have considered buying. This is not a problem of the bad old music industry, the bad old film industry and now the bad old book industry. It is a problem of people stealing stuff, and the parts of Internet (P2P software, torrent sites etc) that have been set up to facilitate that theft.
-
More from Peter Wells here
-
Sorry, I am late.
Thank you Emma, for telling us about this; it was a side of the story that nobody else has mentioned, and I am better informed for your work.
Get well soon.