Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Back in the day, the electric gypsy's and the crusties owned the sound systems. They made their money from ....other commodities...
sweet so your loss leader was the cover charge and the organisers made their money off selling other 'substances'
how'd you go about filtering money back to the music artists that you played?
did you get apra licenses for each venue or were you allowed to have a mobile license? -
but the MO revolved around value for the punter.
they changed that pretty quickly though didn't they. when someone figured out how much money they could make. It still amazes me how much people are prepared to pay for a dj gig which has less production costs ad people to pay than a full band. guess some punters can't do the math.
-
ROFL (literally)....Dudes, raves started and got popular 'cos lots of people and a handful of speakers snuck into empty warehouses and fields and danced to music all night long.......FOR FREE!
Really? who paid for the massive sound systems and lighting rigs or did you all huddle round a ghetto blaster and a 60 watt light bulb back in the day?
-
Respect for the law? Not all laws are equally worthy of respect, especially the ones that are out of touch with how most people live their lives.
which is one of the themes we've been discussing.
how society as a group have decided that its ok to use the product of someone elses effort without compensating them for their time and expense,
its still against the law but through mass hysteria about evil mega corps and the artist doesn't get any money anyway and various other anarchist concepts that people are prepared to apply to the music model but not the petrol supply or banking, real estate or any industry they work in model,
a little consistency would be a good thing. i'm happy to go for the free access to everything model if everyone goes along with it with the stuff they make.
-
Piracy, in terms of coffee shops and their employees
but stealing the ingredients, ie not paying for the coffee.
-
Downloading mp3s' isn't going to overlap with the 'killing people
me either but I didn't say killing people, I said invading and taking stuff.
and I also said it was partly bull shit (your words), a notion a concept not yet formed if you will, feel free to toy with it as you will.and regardless of how 50's america might have actually been, maybe we should talk about 50's nz, back doors unlocked, keys in the car, jumpers for goal posts etc, you can't deny that there is a trend toward less respect for others property, unless you're under 20 and don't remember such times.
-
But most people don't stiff a waitress, because then she starves
or she has to get a real job where the income isn't a lottery
or her employer will stop skimping on the wages and reflect the cost of the whole meal service in his prices,
or most people will think of it as an acceptable risk and not pay a tip it cos their friends don't either and cos media commentators say its the done thing now etc,
could go one of a number of ways.
-
its not a comparison
Yes, it is. You're saying that societies are more or less ethical than other societies (problematic in itself), and drawing an equivalence between starting an unjust war and music piracy, by saying that they're part of some sort of continuum. I call bullshit. Sorry.
I'm not comparing digital piracy to invading a country, I'm saying that we are influenced by other societies through our media, and america is one of those societies.
its all part of the bigger picture though. if america was still the 50's america of smiling geeks and rescuing puppies I'm sure we'd be a little different in our society too.
As it is they're presently setting the example in a number of fields that leave a little to be desired. one of those is invading countries they want something from (oil). The more you see people doing things uncheck you used to think were wrong, the more you allow yourself to adopt those guide lines.in our music piracy model - if more people said, "hey, its totally reasonable for music creators to want to stop the wholesale copying and distribution of their music by attempting to create a Digital rights management system" instead of pushing the "people who try to manage digital rights are evil mega corps" angle then maybe we'd have more respect for people who create the music, films etc, and it wouldn't be an issue that is threatening to shut down production above home enthusiast level.
also it was partly bullshit too, what,... you think I'm working from a script here, I'm making this up as I go along just like you.
-
Actually my advice to a band last year was to take your best song,
was this a new band without a profile trying to get their name out there.
There's a difference between that and an established act.
also of note its a move back to a singles way of consumption. my partner bought up in a recent discussion on paid downloads was that it enabled her to avoid getting an album of filler when all she wanted was the one song. if you've already given your best song away you better hope you're not one of the bands that people only like you for your one hit -
I would be willing to lay money that a band with no DRM that gets its music listened to by lotsa folks will earn way more than one with the strong DRM solution, so only folks who pay get to hear the music.
you'll be able to research your theory now cos there's been plenty of time to test it.
I think the DRM or not has nothing to do with popularity. its promotion and hype. weather its easily stealable or not is beside the point. if your audience is people who routinely don't pay for the product then you better get another audience, or stop them taking it without payment. put a security guard on the door of the dairy, so to speak.