Hard News: The song is not the same
314 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
Hmm, so the quote tag is case sensitive, to boot..
We learn something new everyday.
-
I don't think anybody has said that. I certainly haven't. My point is that if you make money at it, it's a bonus.
I was referring to what I perceive to be the implication of that statement in Banksy's book. Nothing to do with what you personally might have said or written.
or have been helped by public institutions or private benefactors (or their parents).
Banksy presumably needs money to live. He thinks that living off art by means of copyright is for losers. So he either has a job and does art in his spare time, or receives funds from elsewhere. As it turns out, he's asserted his copyright in the book, so what the hell is he on about anyway?
Que? WTF has CC got to do with ethics? Have you not been sleeping properly, Giovanni?
I was hoping somebody would call me on this, I deserve it... and nothing to do with ethics, really, I just find it a little pretentious, sometimes (it depends on the blog, and that surely makes *me* pretentious, and elitist): it's your own wee diary, you're giving it to the commons as if the commons cared, or as if it made any meaningful difference whether you licensed it in that particular way or not.
-
And I think that is the main thing that is going to change. Russ was talking about the Hype Machine not so long ago. The whole nature of the business and how you get noticed is changing. People are telling each other what to listen to.
Even there, the hand of the publicist and PR specialists are working. Go and ask Mark Kneebone how it works. He's a wizard.
the time period you base your hatred of the evil empire on was when it was quite expensive, and as you've said artists are more aware and the deals are more varied and fair.
Rob, I was writing contracts as recently as yesterday. The simple fact is that recording a record or a CD is a very tiny part of the cost involved if you want to make any dent beyond your mates buying the 500 discs you may press. But, if we are talking NZ, wander through the NZ album and single charts and look at the number of acts who are doing it themselves and ask yourself if they are making more money by simply paying the likes of Mark Kneebone $5000, or giving away 90% of the return to a label (who also deduct that other 10% to cover costs). Maybe they've all worked it out, I reckon so. The same is happening in the rest of the world on a bigger scale (although less so in the US..it will come). The UK album charts have been full of people who decided to go it alone in one way or another now for a few years.
surely you miss the majors expense account now. :)
No. But to be honest if I was still doing A&R I'd not even think about an act who didn't have the nous to raise $1750 to press their own CDs if they needed it, or 'just wanted to make music'. And if I wasn't interested I know the public wouldn't be either. And if you can't do it...hire a fucking manager. When I first released records I had no cash...I borrowed a couple of hundred bucks here, a couple of hundred there, made some friends at the pressing plant and then sat down and worked out how to sell the things and who I needed to schmooze. Little has changed, you just have more tools available now. And there are plenty of ways to fund things that don't involve selling your soul or your copyrights. People are doing it daily worldwide.
-
I was referring to what I perceive to be the implication of that statement in Banksy's book. Nothing to do with what you personally might have said or written.
Your inference may or may not have any connection to what Banksy may or may not be implying, hmm?
I was hoping somebody would call me on this, I deserve it... and nothing to do with ethics, really, I just find it a little pretentious, sometimes (it depends on the blog, and that surely makes *me* pretentious, and elitist): it's your own wee diary, you're giving it to the commons as if the commons cared, or as if it made any meaningful difference whether you licensed it in that particular way or not.
Glad to oblige.
CC is not about giving anything away to a mythical commons that will cherish and care for it. It's about permissions. Copyright (as we know it) is about restrictions, i.e. this is mine and you can't do anything with it without my express permission. CC is about expressly giving permission to do certain things with a piece of work, and those permissions can vary from "make sure you spell my name correctly and acknowledge me" through to "you can't make money from my work without giving me some, so call me and we'll talk" (qrossly over-simplified, I know). It's the equivalent of saying "here's what I allow you to do with my content, don't bother me if it falls under these conditions" which saves time and angst for everyone. By no means does it mean that copyright no longer is held by the creator of the work, only that people are free to use the work in specified ways.
That makes a difference, whether you perceive it or not.
-
Even there, the hand of the publicist and PR specialists are working. Go and ask Mark Kneebone how it works. He's a wizard.
Oh sure, and that will never go away. But that's the equivalent of hiring Mr Green to cut your lawns, yeah? You could do it yourself, but you're busy touring so let's put it in the hands of a specialist. You don't have to handover ownership of the lawn in order to get it mowed.
So actually, there's room for lots of Mark Kneebones to pop up and make a living facilitating other players.
I never meant to imply that every artist had to do it themselves, just that they could, successfully do so.
-
That makes a difference, whether you perceive it or not.
It makes a difference to something that is worthwhile. Most blogs that I see CC come with, nobody would bother to quote, permission or no permission. I'm more interested in what the bloggers on PA do, or Harvest Bird does, or this guy. Good writers who put a lot of care in their work, enough for you to think shit, they should be earning from this.
-
Do you mean because he's in NZ, and the audience and money is overwhelmingly overseas?
Because you'd think in theory, the internet would make distance less of a problem for at least some part of being an artist - can get your music out there and gather fans by only investing time.
Primarily because he's trying to break into a market that does require some investment, more than you can reasonably raise in this part of the world. Going to a place, cap in hand, especially when they see you primarily as a one off novelty act, you have to make some hard choices. And the US is still a very conservative market as it's always been, well behind Europe.
You wanna break through the 'who the fuck are you and why should I care' attitude, it's expensive and it can't be done by sitting back on the other side of the world and saying 'I have a good song'.
-
ask yourself if they are making more money by simply paying the likes of Mark Kneebone $5000, or giving away 90% of the return to a label (who also deduct that other 10% to cover costs). Maybe they've all worked it out, I reckon so.
knowing a few of those people, the answer is the difference is marginal. factor into that equation the amount of time each band member/support crew put in of unpaid time and its much of a muchness. there are exceptions. but the financial benefits of do it yourself a greatly overrated, especially if you're in the 80% of the market section who don't make a great deal so there's fuck all to be ripped off.
The real benefit to do it yourself is a sense of connection with your audience.so you see the 90% clause in your contract, are you igning it or you turning it around to be more favourable?
why are we afraid of these contracts if everyone's aware of em now and is in a position to negotiate them more favourable. looks like the monster isn't so scary once you know how they play the game.
$5000 to kneebone is still $5000, if you ain't got it ............. -
He thinks that living off art by means of copyright is for losers. So he either has a job and does art in his spare time, or receives funds from elsewhere
(A) he's a public school twit, and (b) he makes money the non-commissioned painter's way, i.e. sale of works at auction, I should imagine.
(He may also swing grants, but i doubt it, and I shouldn't think he needs that money.)
It's probably a little bit of snobbery, as well. Banksy's not really at risk of anybody downloading a Banksy, so...
-
You could do it yourself, but you're busy touring so let's put it in the hands of a specialist. You don't have to handover ownership of the lawn in order to get it mowed.
So actually, there's room for lots of Mark Kneebones to pop up and make a living facilitating other players.
Yep, absolutely. And that is the very point. More and more artists, or their switched on teams, worldwide, are doing just that. Or working in partnership with other entities to do that.
And you, if you are an NZ artist, have to make the judgement as to whether it's possible to do work that way offshore. Some acts say no, and give a massive chunk away but the face the reality further down the track that a small cut of a million ringtones less whatever you need to recoup out of your share (recording, half the promo costs, half the very expensive videos they tell you they need, huge tour support and all the rest) is about zip, or far less than everyone thinks you've earned.
Then they tell you they need a cut of your merchandising and tour income to cover their costs too, in one of those insane 360 deals in which a company which is fast losing power in the marketplace tells you they need more of your income to make it work.
-
It makes a difference to something that is worthwhile.
That's a pretty arrogant approach, especially from a blogger, Gio. That blog is worthwhile to at least one person, the one who wrote it. If this were further back in the thread I'd be tempted to ask for evidence of your divinity in making such a judgement. If you don't like it, don't read it. But you can't deny the right of the individual to put out their own content in the form that they most feel comfortable with and still claim to be an anarchist.
Most blogs that I see CC come with, nobody would bother to quote, permission or no permission
Thanks so much. I'm sure that will keep all of us who understand Creative Commons awake at nights.
-
knowing a few of those people, the answer is the difference is marginal. factor into that equation the amount of time each band member/support crew put in of unpaid time and its much of a muchness. there are exceptions. but the financial benefits of do it yourself a greatly overrated, especially if you're in the 80% of the market section who don't make a great deal so there's fuck all to be ripped off.
I'm guessing then Rob, you need to fire off a few emails to indies and artists both here and around the world because that is increasingly the way it's being done.
And once again, if you are not the sort of artist who can't hustle their way into finding $5000 or $3000 or whatever it takes to have career beyond the pub, or finding an independent label to do it, then I'm not interested. Stick to weddings and your mates' parties.
so you see the 90% clause in your contract, are you igning it or you turning it around to be more favourable?
why are we afraid of these contracts if everyone's aware of em now and is in a position to negotiate them more favourable.You think hiring a lawyer to take on the we-don't-give-a-fuck-who-you-are international Business Affairs dept of a major label in NYC or London is cheaper and more cost effective than hiring Mark to promote your record? Seriously?
-
That's a pretty arrogant approach, especially from a blogger, Gio.
Although to be fair, I prefaced the statement by saying that it was an arrogant approach.
That blog is worthwhile to at least one person, the one who wrote it.
For sure. But if you bother to make a statement regarding its permitted and not permitted use, aren't you also commenting on how valuable you think that others ought to consider it? And if you're doing that, can't I (arrogantly, naughtily, pricklily) also think to myself 'why did you bother to regulate this? it's not as if you're likely to have the Guardian knocking on your door any moment, or bootleggers robbing you of recognition.'
If this were further back in the thread I'd be tempted to ask for evidence of your divinity in making such a judgement. If you don't like it, don't read it.
The thing is: often I do like it, and I do read it, for what it is. It's just that sometimes the CC license there seems a little bit of an overkill, is all. I'm not making a blanket statement about ALL blogs thus licensed, it goes without saying.
But you can't deny the right of the individual to put out their own content in the form that they most feel comfortable with and still claim to be an anarchist.
Claim to be a what now?
-
Pistols at dawn..
-
I missed your preface :-/
if you bother to make a statement regarding its permitted and not permitted use, aren't you also commenting on how valuable you think that others ought to consider it
Nope, not any more than someone who has "All Rights Reserved" which is the assumed position under the law in countries who adhere to the Berne Convention. Without a specific licence declared, your entire blog is copyright, whether you claim it or not.
CC makes no more assumption of value than does unadorned copyright. It requires copyright law in order to make it work. It just adds some shades of grey into what's possible and what's not.
It's not about regulation, it's about easing the requirements of regulation.
Claim to be a what now?
Sorry, I must have misread your comments to Russell the other day.
-
if you are not the sort of artist who can't hustle their way into finding $5000 or $3000 or whatever it takes to have career beyond the pub, or finding an independent label to do it, then I'm not interested.
So you're judging the quality of an artist by its ability to generate start up cash, essentially their ability to have a day job, or to have friends with money they will loan to them.
some of the best music I've seen or had contact with came from just such people, and you'll know this yourself through you're own label.
you live in a different league if you think $5000 is nothing to most artists. here its unreachable unless you have a day job. no one who is not a covers band playing weddings is pulling that.
All I'm saying is, evil labels have their place, they perform a service.You think hiring a lawyer to take on the we-don't-give-a-fuck-who-you-are international Business Affairs dept of a major label in NYC or London is cheaper and more cost effective than hiring Mark to promote your record? Seriously?
no I'm saying seriously, the scary monster you keep talking about isn't so scary when its a known quantity.
at the end of the day the money you lose to a label gets you the support of their team. the money you lose to kneebone may or may not get you anything at all. he'll put it in front of people but he can't make them eat it. if a label is behind you it filters out that dreamer factor (you've met plenty no doubt, the I'm going to be famous you just watch, but they're so horrible words can't describe the pain their music causes......shiver). labels take you on cos they think you've got something. you take your self on cos you believe in yourself, and quite often you might be the only one.
you're advocating earning kneebone a living at the expense of a more powerful system, I can dig that cos kneebonees a cooler guy, but its half dozen the other and I'd rather be losing someone elses cash, but los of people are totally prepared to lose their own, on your advice :) -
Holy crap. Wikileaks just took on the UN
This will make or break them
-
CC makes no more assumption of value than does unadorned copyright. It requires copyright law in order to make it work. It just adds some shades of grey into what's possible and what's not.
It's not about regulation, it's about easing the requirements of regulation.
I'm aware of all this. You'd be horrified to discover that somebody offered me to be in charge of the CC website before its inception (oh, the humanity!). I'm commenting on the psychology of the thing: if you do bother to put CC or (c), as opposed to nothing (which, I'm aware, implies (c)) on a thing of yours, you're making a statement about where you think that what you write might fit in relation to the public discourse. That statement sometimes seems (to me, el grosso pricko) incommensurate with the intellectual product on display. That is all. Now you're forcing me to put either of those things on my blog, and eat my hat.
But, as I say, I was hoping to be called on this.
-
You think hiring a lawyer
there's plenty written about this topic to deal with this yourself, a google search will give you a swag of things to be wary of. sure a lawyer would know better but there's no one forcing you to go with the evil in nyc any more, there are plenty of options, just find the one that suits, safe in the knowledge that in 95% of the cases you're not going to be much worse off than if you did every - friggin - thing - yourself.
-
you're making a statement about where you think that what you write might fit in relation to the public discourse.
Surely the act of publishing is that statement in itself?
-
Surely the act of publishing is that statement in itself?
Oh, totally. The one pertaining to rights of copy and distribution just compounds that statement.
-
there's plenty written about this topic to deal with this yourself, a google search will give you a swag of things to be wary of. sure a lawyer would know better but there's no one forcing you to go with the evil in nyc any more, there are plenty of options, just find the one that suits, safe in the knowledge that in 95% of the cases you're not going to be much worse off than if you did every - friggin - thing - yourself.
I can't take you seriously Rob. Have you worked your way through a major label contract of recent? What exactly is 'the one that suits"? And do I use 'I have plenty of options' as a negotiating ploy with a major label that a) knows I haven't and b) doesn't really give a toss if I sign or not.
It may or may not sell but if it does, that 'you're not going to be much worse off than if you did every - friggin - thing - yourself.' is just nonsense by a very hefty margin.
-
Have you worked your way through a major label contract of recent?
who said anything about major?
I said label, you're the one who's got this obsession with these big boys. you need some new friends to play with man, your last batch have scared and scarred you.
The industry people I play with who want me to sign contracts aren't quite so distant and evil, infact I think I could take em in a bar room brawl.is just nonsense by a very hefty margin.
you know that's not true in a huge portion of the cases of musical endeavor., especially in this country, only the top top top small percent are in the big earners league. everyone else is in that other group, break even or less. that often quoted thing about labels needing to make big on the hit artists to make up for the money they lost on the other 100. its a lottery,
you're hefty margin is heftily exaggerated.
-
<- your, not you're.
I hate my english teachers
-
So you're judging the quality of an artist by its ability to generate start up cash, essentially their ability to have a day job, or to have friends with money they will loan to them.
No, from a business POV, from their drive. No drive..fuck off....
who said anything about major?
I said label, you're the one who's got this obsession with these big boys. you need some new friends to play with man, your last batch have scared and scarred you.Read the thread Rob, it was very clear what I was talking about pages ago. I give up. Again.
your hefty margin is heftily exaggerated.
No it is not. Rob, I've tried to explain the obvious but you go around in circles, misreading and taking all sorts of wild illogical swings. It's getting us nowhere and I have work to do. Sorry.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.