‎"Say Hello to the new boss, same as the old boss". Digital Music Myths Re-education

[porno jew]

Record labels and artists don't need to re-invent their business model to match the new reality. THEY ALREADY DID. That's what we've all been doing for the last ten years. AND WE NOW KNOW IT"S ACTUALLY WORSE FOR THE ARTIST.

We know this empirically. The facts and evidence are in. Let's start with the best case scenario. Let's just look at the division of gross revenues and expenses. The scenario where the artist puts out the record themselves on their own label. Okay the vast majority of sales take place on iTunes and Amazon. How much does the artist get paid? Well if you are independent you get 61% of gross. cause you need either a distributor or an aggregator to get on iTunes. iTunes itself keeps more than 30% for simply hosting the songs on their servers. They do absolutely nothing else. This is why steve jobs was a genius. He was not afraid to be greedy. So now an old style record deal might have netted the artist 20-35% of gross (most reports of artists deals are wrong and low because they don't include the mechanical royalties).

The old deals weren't great on first glance but then if you start digging into it they weren't as bad as people think. And as i will show you were in most cases a better deal for the artists then the New model. 61% of gross is a lot better than 20-35% of gross until you consider the fact that under the new model the artist is responsible for all aspects of the records production, marketing and distribution.

The Artist pays for the recording, the artist pays for all publicity, promotion and advertising. and here is the key thing. The artist absorbs the costs of touring. You know only a handful of artists make a living touring right? most artists need another job to go back to or they get tour support from the record label. Touring usually only pays enough to pay the crew and expenses. Touring only makes sense if it increases your sales. Artists often go on tour for free in hopes that the tour pays off in increased sales.

In fact under the old model record labels used to pay artists to tour. (actually they still do). Once you factor in the Tour Support labels once paid to artists the the model is actually shittier to the artist. Unless of course you don't tourt.

Plus the new model makes the artist absorb ALL THE RISK. The risk of making a recording that doesn't recoup. The risk of going on tours that don't increase sales enough and become a loss.

Now consider iTunes and Amazon who are now the biggest music companies of all. They put up ZERO CAPITAL and ZERO RISK and they get 30% of the gross in return. At least the old record label system shared some of the risk! Wow the old labels were not so evil compared to the new labels.

So essentially THE NEW BOSS in the new model is iTunes and Amazon (also indirectly Google). And THE NEW BOSS is actually more greedy than the old boss.

Now of course the independent artist can still sell so many albums that the higher percentage of gross 61% overwhelms the higher initial costs. But I bet this is not the case for most of your favorite artists. The increased costs and responsibilities make THE NEW MODEL a worse deal. The artists that do better under the new model are few and far between. That's why so many artists that seemingly could go independent do not. They still use record labels. Look carefully at your favorite artists latest record. Is it still on a standard record label? A lot of smart well managed bands still on labels. Why? Because the NEW MODEL is actually worse.

But you didn't even need this whole complex argument to see this right? You've already spotted the main problem right?

In the new model you have these parasitic entities (itunes etc) that take 30% of gross and provide no added value. As screwed up as the old business was there was this giant parasitic entity sucking out 30% of gross for nothing. This should suggest to any intelligent person that there is something seriously wrong with the NEW MODEL

Now I'm as surprised as you that we would evolve a worse system than the old record label system. But facts are facts. We have. And I'm not happy about either.

(Also in my argument i haven't taken into account the way managers and agents are paid. Because of quirks in how managers are compensated it actually makes the new model even worse)

And finally please don't be an idiot arguing with me if you can't point to real evidence. or you don't know the actual percentages or costs. You can't just drop hearsay, urban myths, fairytales and pretend they are facts. If you do I reserve the right to flame your ass for talking out of your ass.

http://www.facebook.com/davidclowery...50546073612402

[epitome]

It used to be the artist made money from touring and merch. Now they're not even getting that?

How do they all get and manage to keep their mansions?

I do remember the behind the scenes where TLC explained how you can be so huge and still make $50k a year each. They start with $5.5 million, have to repay expenses, give almost half to taxes and then what's left is pretty much goes to managers and agents and then what's left is split by three.

[scuba steve]

Originally Posted by epitome

It used to be the artist made money from touring and merch. Now they're not even getting that?

How do they all get and manage to keep their mansions?

I do remember the behind the scenes where TLC explained how you can be so huge and still make $50k a year each. They start with $5.5 million, have to repay expenses, give almost half to taxes and then what's left is pretty much goes to managers and agents and then what's left is split by three.

eh i'd still be a rockstar just for the girls

[porno jew]

read the piece again. think you mixed up a few points.

yeah people always bring up tlc but you don't hear about the artists for who the old system worked very well for.

Originally Posted by epitome

It used to be the artist made money from touring and merch. Now they're not even getting that?

How do they all get and manage to keep their mansions?

I do remember the behind the scenes where TLC explained how you can be so huge and still make $50k a year each. They start with $5.5 million, have to repay expenses, give almost half to taxes and then what's left is pretty much goes to managers and agents and then what's left is split by three.

[porno jew]

i just think those chicks weren't that smart. is any major hip hop artist leaving their label because there is more money running everything yourself and selling it through itunes? no.

Originally Posted by epitome

It used to be the artist made money from touring and merch. Now they're not even getting that?

How do they all get and manage to keep their mansions?

I do remember the behind the scenes where TLC explained how you can be so huge and still make $50k a year each. They start with $5.5 million, have to repay expenses, give almost half to taxes and then what's left is pretty much goes to managers and agents and then what's left is split by three.

[epitome]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing... tons of stars make a ton of money.

Britney, Madonna, Rihanna, Gaga, everybody that is at the top today doesn't seem to be complaining about money.

I had just always thought that say, Britney, made the most money going out on tour. Yeah, she makes a killing with her record sales, but her best year's are when she's on the road.

[porno jew]

where does it say artists under the old system didn't make money on the road?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by porno jew

Record labels and artists don't need to re-invent their business model to match the new reality. THEY ALREADY DID. That's what we've all been doing for the last ten years. AND WE NOW KNOW IT"S ACTUALLY WORSE FOR THE ARTIST.

We know this empirically. The facts and evidence are in. Let's start with the best case scenario. Let's just look at the division of gross revenues and expenses. The scenario where the artist puts out the record themselves on their own label. Okay the vast majority of sales take place on iTunes and Amazon. How much does the artist get paid? Well if you are independent you get 61% of gross. cause you need either a distributor or an aggregator to get on iTunes. iTunes itself keeps more than 30% for simply hosting the songs on their servers. They do absolutely nothing else. This is why steve jobs was a genius. He was not afraid to be greedy. So now an old style record deal might have netted the artist 20-35% of gross (most reports of artists deals are wrong and low because they don't include the mechanical royalties).

only if you sue your record company and win so they will treat itune sales as liciencing instead of sales.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...93610898.shtml


of course new artist aren't that lucky, there contracts explictly define itunes as sales even though they are technically liciencing (see case declaration)

The old deals weren't great on first glance but then if you start digging into it they weren't as bad as people think. And as i will show you were in most cases a better deal for the artists then the New model. 61% of gross is a lot better than 20-35% of gross until you consider the fact that under the new model the artist is responsible for all aspects of the records production, marketing and distribution.

except the old contracts charged back those cost to the artist share of the royalties. so in both cases they are responsible. The biggest problem is the accounting rates in which they charged you, for example a $6/hour grunt work like answering emails etc is charged out at the average cost of employees at the record company ($20/hour++++)

The Artist pays for the recording, the artist pays for all publicity, promotion and advertising. and here is the key thing. The artist absorbs the costs of touring. You know only a handful of artists make a living touring right? most artists need another job to go back to or they get tour support from the record label. Touring usually only pays enough to pay the crew and expenses. Touring only makes sense if it increases your sales. Artists often go on tour for free in hopes that the tour pays off in increased sales.

problem solved using kickstarter, presell your tour, your album etc, and you get all the fronting of money that the record company will give you and you don't have to give up your copyright

Get a contract offer from a record company, no matter how high it is, you will get a better deal from your fans on kickstarter.

To this date i have had this happen 100% of time.

In fact under the old model record labels used to pay artists to tour. (actually they still do). Once you factor in the Tour Support labels once paid to artists the the model is actually shittier to the artist. Unless of course you don't tourt.

has this guy looked at a record contract, if you read them carefully they pay artist to perform at sponsorship events (tours) taking a big portion off the top. It the sponsors who actually pay the artist.

And kickstarter/good pr agent can do that too.

Plus the new model makes the artist absorb ALL THE RISK. The risk of making a recording that doesn't recoup. The risk of going on tours that don't increase sales enough and become a loss.

one word kickstarter

Now consider iTunes and Amazon who are now the biggest music companies of all. They put up ZERO CAPITAL and ZERO RISK and they get 30% of the gross in return. At least the old record label system shared some of the risk! Wow the old labels were not so evil compared to the new labels.

So essentially THE NEW BOSS in the new model is iTunes and Amazon (also indirectly Google). And THE NEW BOSS is actually more greedy than the old boss.

Now of course the independent artist can still sell so many albums that the higher percentage of gross 61% overwhelms the higher initial costs. But I bet this is not the case for most of your favorite artists. The increased costs and responsibilities make THE NEW MODEL a worse deal. The artists that do better under the new model are few and far between. That's why so many artists that seemingly could go independent do not. They still use record labels. Look carefully at your favorite artists latest record. Is it still on a standard record label? A lot of smart well managed bands still on labels. Why? Because the NEW MODEL is actually worse.

But you didn't even need this whole complex argument to see this right? You've already spotted the main problem right?

In the new model you have these parasitic entities (itunes etc) that take 30% of gross and provide no added value. As screwed up as the old business was there was this giant parasitic entity sucking out 30% of gross for nothing. This should suggest to any intelligent person that there is something seriously wrong with the NEW MODEL

Now I'm as surprised as you that we would evolve a worse system than the old record label system. But facts are facts. We have. And I'm not happy about either.

(Also in my argument i haven't taken into account the way managers and agents are paid. Because of quirks in how managers are compensated it actually makes the new model even worse)

And finally please don't be an idiot arguing with me if you can't point to real evidence. or you don't know the actual percentages or costs. You can't just drop hearsay, urban myths, fairytales and pretend they are facts. If you do I reserve the right to flame your ass for talking out of your ass.

http://www.facebook.com/davidclowery...50546073612402

johnathan coultran

earned 500K last year without the record label

He was an artist who tried to make it using the old system and had to get a job as a software developer to make the rent when he failed.

He is the new class of professional hobbist

we are in the infancy stage of the new model, that like the record industry in the early motown era (when white men used to "co author" songs so they could take 1/2 the artist royalties).

[asdasd]

man you suck.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by porno jew

i just think those chicks weren't that smart. is any major hip hop artist leaving their label because there is more money running everything yourself and selling it through itunes? no.

joss stone setup her own record studio (stoned records)

MC hammer

ok go

[porno jew]

mc hammer never left a major label. he has sucked for almost two decades.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by porno jew

mc hammer never left a major label. he has sucked for almost two decades.

he makes more money now then when he was with the major record labels

old system

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...39371651.shtml

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...30835920080710

4.6 million albums sold, zero dollars


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...04472040.shtml

double platinum 2 million sold = zero dollars.



new system

500k in profits when you an artist who FAILED under the old system.

Same talent level, new system turns a profit.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...star-tells-all

[porno jew]

he lost money because he was stupid back then. have the record labels forced neil young into a life of penury?

most of your examples were built up by the old system and are still profiting off that investment.

that geek singer is an extreme example and can't be repeated unless people want to sing about video games and nerd shit.

[asdasd]

Porno jew you were the reason they built debtor prisons, shut up before it is you who is identified.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by porno jew

he lost money because he was stupid back then. have the record labels forced neil young into a life of penury?

most of your examples were built up by the old system and are still profiting off that investment.

that geek singer is an extreme example and can't be repeated unless people want to sing about video games and nerd shit.

right just like you claimed that kevin smith was earning 20k/ engagement because of his movie career

BTW

you still haven't explained why he didn't start with that at that level if it truely came from that studio sponsored success.

Like i said no matter what you say about MC hammer he is making more NOW then he was when he was a grammy winning recording artist.

[gideongallery]

establish artist are jumping ship like crazy

New artist are making more money from kickstarter

and when artist do get suckered into long term deals and they see things like

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...fine-adventure

raising 1.7 million for a "dead" game genre

even artist getting $1 million dollar advances (for 5 record deal) are thinking twice about the deal they just struck.

[Barry-xlovecam]

[N]ow consider iTunes and Amazon who are now the biggest music companies of all. They put up ZERO CAPITAL and ZERO RISK and they get 30% of the gross in return. At least the old record label system shared some of the risk! Wow the old labels were not so evil compared to the new labels. ...

That is incredibly ignorant ... iTunes and Amazon are the end seller, the 'retailer' if you will -- they have spent a fortune building a marketing platform and a customer base THAT IS WORTH EVERYTHING TO THE PRODUCER OF THE GOODS!! (Music in this case.) This guy is an idiot -- if he creates music then he can keep all the money and sell it himself ... good fucking luck ...

[epitome]

Originally Posted by porno jew

where does it say artists under the old system didn't make money on the road?

Fuck, idk. I clearly have to read it again.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by epitome

How do they all get and manage to keep their mansions?

Most don't. Most work ten years or so trying to get a record deal, then the few who get a deal make big money for about a year before they are no longer the hot new thing. Some up end living in public storage units, others get jobs as bookkeepers or whatever. A few live on $60,000 seven in the year they make $2 million, so they have some left. A couple dozen, like MJ and Madonna, keep selling records for years.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by porno jew

that geek singer is an extreme example and can't be repeated unless people want to sing about video games and nerd shit.

if your to stupid to realize there are 1000s of other niches you could succeed in

or



once someone innovates a new niche



hundreds of people can copy it reach the same niche


That your problem.

Just because your an idiot to stupid to realize the new market potential doesn't mean other people are equally stupid.

[bronco67]

There will always be people with no talent, to make money from the people who have it. Will never change.

Actually, their talent is being able to take advantage of talent, but they're still useless.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

That is incredibly ignorant ... iTunes and Amazon are the end seller, the 'retailer' if you will -- they have spent a fortune building a marketing platform and a customer base THAT IS WORTH EVERYTHING TO THE PRODUCER OF THE GOODS!! (Music in this case.) This guy is an idiot -- if he creates music then he can keep all the money and sell it himself ... good fucking luck ...

Agreed 100%.

[gideongallery]

the article was written in response to this picture



so really don't blame the author

blame the scumbag who took the article out of context in an attempt to validate the failed model.

This guy is missing one piece of information, how to make as much money as he would get from the screwed up record deal by giving his stuff away for free on the cyber lockers

When you take the commission that sites like mega upload give you for sending people to their download pages.

You can easily earn 2-3 times what you would get from the record company for all the sales you make.

[asdasd]

I'm on icq.

[MarkDeus]

You know what's the problem with this Industry?
Too many bands. Everybody wants to be a Rockstar, nobody wants to be a fan. Gotta know your place.

Labels nowadays are supermarkets, where bands go into the "special of the week" section once in a while. One they're done, they put them behind the other products.

I worked 8 years in concert organization and I can confirm that most bands return home from touring with debts to pay. Music has become a product that must be consumed, and that is discarded right after.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by PornerBros

You know what's the problem with this Industry?
Too many bands. Everybody wants to be a Rockstar, nobody wants to be a fan. Gotta know your place.

Labels nowadays are supermarkets, where bands go into the "special of the week" section once in a while. One they're done, they put them behind the other products.

I worked 8 years in concert organization and I can confirm that most bands return home from touring with debts to pay. Music has become a product that must be consumed, and that is discarded right after.

Sounds like porn.

[His Infernal Majesty]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Wow, I haven't heard of her before, but she's great! So much effort and production value put into the videos, too. Really thought out.

In any system, though, most "artists" will not make it. This whole system was built up over the last 60 years or so, and for some people it works for others it doesn't work.

I cannot see how Megaupload was providing more money than a label even on a bad deal, though. I did a lot of research into filelocker affiliate programs, and while they tout stuff like $35/1000 downloads, that's only on straight top tier traffic on a huge 2GB file. Most albums in mp3 format are only around 50mb and would only produce around $4/1000. If 100,000 people downloaded an album of your music, you'd only get $400. If only 10,000 people actually BOUGHT your album, and the record label ripped you off and only gave you 10 CENTS per unit, you'd still make $1000!

Am I missing something here?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by His Infernal Majesty

Wow, I haven't heard of her before, but she's great! So much effort and production value put into the videos, too. Really thought out.

In any system, though, most "artists" will not make it. This whole system was built up over the last 60 years or so, and for some people it works for others it doesn't work.

I cannot see how Megaupload was providing more money than a label even on a bad deal, though. I did a lot of research into filelocker affiliate programs, and while they tout stuff like $35/1000 downloads, that's only on straight top tier traffic on a huge 2GB file. Most albums in mp3 format are only around 50mb and would only produce around $4/1000. If 100,000 people downloaded an album of your music, you'd only get $400. If only 10,000 people actually BOUGHT your album, and the record label ripped you off and only gave you 10 CENTS per unit, you'd still make $1000!

Am I missing something here?

RIAA own studies have shown that 20 times as many people will download a free mp3 as will buy it for 99 cents.

The real number is closer to 43X.

And

for every $1,000 sold, the average musician gets $23.40 because of Record company accounting.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...82610186.shtml

[His Infernal Majesty]

Ok so let's use those numbers so 400,000 downloads now at 4/1000 is $1600 on Megaupload.

Still using 10,000 sold (40x less bought instead of downloaded) as a base number x $10 paid per album is $100,000 total. The artist gets $23.40 per $1000 sold so 2.34%. That is $2340.

Honestly, it looks like both ways they are being screwed. File lockers also routinely screw over their own affiliates, as well, plus there is no way to truly ensure their download tracking or country filter is working.

I can see why you would be behind kickstarter and direct distribution, however I don't understand why you would advocate for megaupload.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by His Infernal Majesty

Ok so let's use those numbers so 400,000 downloads now at 4/1000 is $1600 on Megaupload.

Still using 10,000 sold (40x less bought instead of downloaded) as a base number x $10 paid per album is $100,000 total. The artist gets $23.40 per $1000 sold so 2.34%. That is $2340.

Honestly, it looks like both ways they are being screwed. File lockers also routinely screw over their own affiliates, as well, plus there is no way to truly ensure their download tracking or country filter is working.

The average musican makes that, remember top tier artist don't get screwed over as much, so for every britney spears there are 1000 artist who have to make nothing or less.

Remember you still have to cover your advance out of that money so most artist will actually owe the record company money which means their next album need to recoup even more to get paid royalties (and of course that one doesn't get an advance)

I can see why you would be behind kickstarter and direct distribution, however I don't understand why you would advocate for megaupload.

because you don't have to give up the copyright to get that money

you get 100% of liciencing revenue you generate

you keep 100% of the sale you make on your web site

and if people want to simply donate money to you keep 100% of that too.
....

mega upload works on the small scale as well as the large scale. There is no negative position

[His Infernal Majesty]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

because you don't have to give up the copyright to get that money

you get 100% of liciencing revenue you generate

you keep 100% of the sale you make on your web site

and if people want to simply donate money to you keep 100% of that too.
....

mega upload works on the small scale as well as the large scale. There is no negative position

You give up more than copyright. They way they do business it doesn't matter if you own it 100% or not, THEY will make money from it. The record labels are shady, too, but you have a choice not to sign a contract with them. With Megaupload there is no choice. Either you accept your work to be devalued to a pittance or someone else will make money from it.

I have seen a lot of success stories of people using KickStarter and Bandcamp, CD Baby, etc, even that guy you posted above built his own site and sold music directly. And for even how much record labels rip people off, there are still success stories from that business model. Doesn't make their tactics "right" but it's still a choice that works for some artists across genres. But I haven't seen anyone besides paid shills and pirates touting Megaupload as a truly viable income source.

If you have, please post some links. I am curious but I just don't see how those numbers work out even in bulk.

[Axzar]

If I was Apple, I would build the best amphitheater and sponsor the best free concert series that was possible. Established and new bands, every single night of the week.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by His Infernal Majesty

You give up more than copyright. They way they do business it doesn't matter if you own it 100% or not, THEY will make money from it. The record labels are shady, too, but you have a choice not to sign a contract with them. With Megaupload there is no choice. Either you accept your work to be devalued to a pittance or someone else will make money from it.

for a hundred bucks a month you can hire a firm to dcma pirated links from megaupload

which is a hell of a lot less costly then hiring a publicity to get yourself radio play without a record label.

I have seen a lot of success stories of people using KickStarter and Bandcamp, CD Baby, etc, even that guy you posted above built his own site and sold music directly. And for even how much record labels rip people off, there are still success stories from that business model. Doesn't make their tactics "right" but it's still a choice that works for some artists across genres.

so the piracy potential method should be left alone just like the shady record label is ?

But I haven't seen anyone besides paid shills and pirates touting Megaupload as a truly viable income source.

If you have, please post some links. I am curious but I just don't see how those numbers work out even in bulk.

so 500k per year JC example is not enough.


the fact is if you tell people "here is the song if you like it pay me for it"

and point them to the mega upload effectively turns megaupload into a radio.

because a small percentage will buy the song adding revenue to the pool for the artist.

Comparing it selling the album at full price is a scum bag way of trying to justify a flawed model because your ignoring the fact mega upload still gives you the potential sale. (at 90% to the artist under their new offering)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...riminals.shtml

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

That is incredibly ignorant ... iTunes and Amazon are the end seller, the 'retailer' if you will -- they have spent a fortune building a marketing platform and a customer base THAT IS WORTH EVERYTHING TO THE PRODUCER OF THE GOODS!! (Music in this case.) This guy is an idiot -- if he creates music then he can keep all the money and sell it himself ... good fucking luck ...

You are incredibly ignorant as well.

Go find out how much it used to cost to set up a shop in a mall or high street.

The Internet forced people into this situation by becoming the main supplier. OK sign of the times and so far all legal and sensible. Factor in piracy and idiots thinking the key to selling the product is to give it away for free. Then you see the situation many are faced with.

When the pirates are reduced to a minimal size, the record labels and artists will deal with iTunes and Amazon on a new level.

Crime should never dictate the way an industry works.

[His Infernal Majesty]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

for a hundred bucks a month you can hire a firm to dcma pirated links from megaupload which is a hell of a lot less costly then hiring a publicity to get yourself radio play without a record label.

I don't see how these two things correlate at all. A lot of bands get zero radio play still do well and do not want their records pirated. Now they have to hire a DMCA firm for a few hundred a month on top of their other expenses so KimDotCom can have 10 luxury cars?

so the piracy potential method should be left alone just like the shady record label is ?

Left alone? People shouldn't sign bad deals. I think the piracy advocates leech onto this argument just to justify their stealing. They are two separate things. Record labels stealing from artists gives pirates the right to make money off the artists, too, without their consent? When the record labels fall, what then?

so 500k per year JC example is not enough.

Jonathan Coulton did not make 500K from megaupload! What are you trying to claim here! He did not support Megaupload at all!

"Obviously none of us knows the complete truth, but I'm guessing that the people who ran MegaUpload were knowingly profiting from the unauthorized download of other people's intellectual property (including mine). Probably they were making a lot of money that way. That's certainly illegal, and it doesn't exactly give them the moral high ground either. In fact, it's kind of a dick move. Essentially, they did bad things and they got in trouble for it."
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/

He has a philosophies (more ANTI SOPA than PRO piracy) about how it wasn't all bad but he made his money through direct distribution NOT one dime from Megaupload.

Comparing it selling the album at full price is a scum bag way of trying to justify a flawed model because your ignoring the fact mega upload still gives you the potential sale. (at 90% to the artist under their new offering)

I compared it to a flawed system to try to justify your own numbers. But you also brought up Coulton who made $500,000 selling his albums on his own at full price NOT through megauploads shit affiliate program! How is that the scum bag way that I support artists controlling their OWN distribution as significantly better than any other way? You just sound like a record label exec now in support of just another way against that endgame.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...riminals.shtml

"1st of all I am soooo proud of my brother @THEREALSWIZZZ 4 being apart of creating something (MEGAUPLOAD) that could create the most powerful way 4 artist 2 get 90% off of every dollar despite the music being downloaded 4 free... "

Here's the thing about that quote. While it is true they would be promised 90% off every dollar made, there is no telling what the VALUE of each song or each album would be. Each whole album might be worth literally less than one cent in this new way. So KimDotCom gets to dictate that now? They can be so desperate to get off the current system that they can end up in a significantly worse ecosystem.

Some artists (like Kid Rock) are not even happy to sell a song at $1 on itunes. It should be their choice. The current Megaupload system devalued their work till it was worth practically nothing. 90% of practically nothing. Great!

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by His Infernal Majesty

I don't see how these two things correlate at all. A lot of bands get zero radio play still do well and do not want their records pirated. Now they have to hire a DMCA firm for a few hundred a month on top of their other expenses so KimDotCom can have 10 luxury cars?

if you want to shut down mega upload because of the piracy problem

then independent artist should have the same right to shut down radio stations who refuse to give them equal play time.

Left alone? People shouldn't sign bad deals. I think the piracy advocates leech onto this argument just to justify their stealing. They are two separate things. Record labels stealing from artists gives pirates the right to make money off the artists, too, without their consent? When the record labels fall, what then?

not what i advocated, at all, i said the government should have left mega upload up, for the independents and simply took down the pirated content only.

Personally i believe that fair use should be protected equal to copyright

if a copyright holder infringes on a fair use, those people should have a right to sue for statutory damages of 25k per infringement

if the copyright holder destroys a business based on fair use, that business should have a right to ask for every copyright to be voided (unless the copyright holder adequately compensates the wrongfully accused for their losses).

I compared it to a flawed system to try to justify your own numbers. But you also brought up Coulton who made $500,000 selling his albums on his own at full price NOT through megauploads shit affiliate program! How is that the scum bag way that I support artists controlling their OWN distribution as significantly better than any other way? You just sound like a record label exec now in support of just another way against that endgame.

accept that not what your advocating, your supporting the shutting down of mega upload

instead of just taking control and running the site for all the people who used in the legit way.

"1st of all I am soooo proud of my brother @THEREALSWIZZZ 4 being apart of creating something (MEGAUPLOAD) that could create the most powerful way 4 artist 2 get 90% off of every dollar despite the music being downloaded 4 free... "

Here's the thing about that quote. While it is true they would be promised 90% off every dollar made, there is no telling what the VALUE of each song or each album would be. Each whole album might be worth literally less than one cent in this new way. So KimDotCom gets to dictate that now? They can be so desperate to get off the current system that they can end up in a significantly worse ecosystem.

Some artists (like Kid Rock) are not even happy to sell a song at $1 on itunes. It should be their choice. The current Megaupload system devalued their work till it was worth practically nothing. 90% of practically nothing. Great!

well since you get to set your own price, and it the market that decides weather people will actually buy or simply download the song for free.

The argument that you should have a right to force people to pay non market driven prices for abundant goods is the most anti free market statement you can make.




there is a model that allows to as much money as you want, even if copyright was completely destroyed.

[Paul Markham]

GG if I spend money to create something I have the right to determine how I sell it. The same goes for Elton John, Bill Gates and Boeing.

I can make as much money as I like or lose everything if I wish.

It's not for some dumb fuck, who can just about scratch his balls without a picture diagram, to decide what he can do with it. Unless he buys those rights.

Now you can argue to the hell freezes over. But until the law is changed that's how it is. Go out and create something other than typed diarrhea. And then you can decide if you want Megaupload, Filesonic and every other pirasite should have it or not.

Is that clear enough?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

GG if I spend money to create something I have the right to determine how I sell it. The same goes for Elton John, Bill Gates and Boeing.

yet you want to take the platform away from creators who want to use it to "sell" there stuff.

Just because they want to paid with attention instead of money should give you the right to deny them that distribution.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Just because they want to paid with attention instead of money should give you the right to deny them that distribution.

if you prefer attention over money you must feel like a billionaire here.

[epitome]

So gideongallery expects a guy that made his money from piracy to accurately report sales for 90% payout?

That is laughable.

[porno jew]

gideon created some weird alternate reality for himself. funny thing even the biggest proponents of free culture, file sharing and so on don't even talk like this. it's just a odd idiosyncratic reality that literally no one shares. he must get frustrated a lot.

like you made up your own language one day and tried to use it at the mall.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

yet you want to take the platform away from creators who want to use it to "sell" there stuff.

Just because they want to paid with attention instead of money should give you the right to deny them that distribution.

Seriously are you retarded?

That can have the option of going direct to the consumer and the Internet is a great tool for this. 1,000 of pornographers have created their own sites and sell their own work online. Yes some go via affiliates and some like me with my content store go direct to the consumer which is the businesses that sell my product.

I choose to go this route and other creators can do the same. There is no need for the pirasites to get in between.

[His Infernal Majesty]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if you want to shut down mega upload because of the piracy problem then independent artist should have the same right to shut down radio stations who refuse to give them equal play time.

How are these two things even related? Who is to determine who gets played on the radio? If my band sucks I should get even playing time with Metallica or Michael Jackson or whoever else has sold millions of records? That isn't a free market it's kindergarden sports where everyone gets a trophy.

Also MegaUpload wasn't a promotional vehicle it was a delivery system. At best case you pushed your own fans there, they (MegaUpload) did not return the favor and give you traffic back. They kept all their traffic and kept all their money.

not what i advocated, at all, i said the government should have left mega upload up, for the independents and simply took down the pirated content only.

How could they do that without seizing the site? Megaupload was warned, as are other sites of their ilk. MegaUpload could've and should've been doing that all along! By the time the government gets involved it is too late! The pirates are just as responsible for putting things like SOPA on the table as the media companies. None of it is about free speech it is all about money. KimDotCom's 30 million vs the Billions of the media conglomerates. Both these idiots are fucking up the internet for everyone else.

Personally i believe that fair use should be protected equal to copyright

if a copyright holder infringes on a fair use, those people should have a right to sue for statutory damages of 25k per infringement

if the copyright holder destroys a business based on fair use, that business should have a right to ask for every copyright to be voided (unless the copyright holder adequately compensates the wrongfully accused for their losses).

Really no one has a right to anything. Like your example Coulton said, no one has a "right" to make money off their own music.

"And if you can stand me sounding even crazier, here is this: making money from art is not a human right. It so happens that technological and societal blahbity bloos have conspired to create a situation where selling songs about monkeys and robots is a viable business, but for most of human history people have NOT paid for art."

I tend to agree with this. Laws are mainly put into place to protect peace. But if someone can be granted 25k for every instance of a false DMCA while I am also granted 25k for every instance of stolen work every time someone takes my content and uploads it to share without my permission. I would GLADLY take that deal!

well since you get to set your own price, and it the market that decides weather people will actually buy or simply download the song for free.

The argument that you should have a right to force people to pay non market driven prices for abundant goods is the most anti free market statement you can make.

Not really. Competition and IP theft are different things completely across every single business. If another company makes a better product or can make a similar project cheaper then that dictates my price. That is a free market. Hyundai copying the exact design for a Ferrari and selling it for the price of their line of cars is not. Think back to when Phystar started making knockoff mac computers for cheaper and were sued into oblivion. Is that anti free market, too?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by His Infernal Majesty

How are these two things even related? Who is to determine who gets played on the radio? If my band sucks I should get even playing time with Metallica or Michael Jackson or whoever else has sold millions of records? That isn't a free market it's kindergarden sports where everyone gets a trophy.

Also MegaUpload wasn't a promotional vehicle it was a delivery system. At best case you pushed your own fans there, they (MegaUpload) did not return the favor and give you traffic back. They kept all their traffic and kept all their money.

but they paid you money for those uploads

and with their linking to one source principle, the artist if they upload the music pre release was the original source and get counting for all other links.

How could they do that without seizing the site? Megaupload was warned, as are other sites of their ilk. MegaUpload could've and should've been doing that all along! By the time the government gets involved it is too late! The pirates are just as responsible for putting things like SOPA on the table as the media companies. None of it is about free speech it is all about money. KimDotCom's 30 million vs the Billions of the media conglomerates. Both these idiots are fucking up the internet for everyone else.

mega upload obeyed valid DMCA takedown notices they should have had immunity

but the very technology that allowed independent musicians to get paid when their stuff was stored on mega upload was used as a justification to void their immunity.

I tend to agree with this. Laws are mainly put into place to protect peace. But if someone can be granted 25k for every instance of a false DMCA while I am also granted 25k for every instance of stolen work every time someone takes my content and uploads it to share without my permission. I would GLADLY take that deal!

first of all your exclusive rights are granted in exchange for blanket immunity for anything fair use. So unless your recognizing that implicit granting of permission (by claiming the copyright in the first place) your actually trying to turn a conditional monopoly into a absolute monopoly.

If your recognizing the permission you gave to fair use, you already have that part.

Not really. Competition and IP theft are different things completely across every single business. If another company makes a better product or can make a similar project cheaper then that dictates my price. That is a free market. Hyundai copying the exact design for a Ferrari and selling it for the price of their line of cars is not. Think back to when Phystar started making knockoff mac computers for cheaper and were sued into oblivion. Is that anti free market, too?

but that only because copyright and ip have been given special exclusion because it was "impossible" to make money without those special protections.

The razor case study proves that condition is no longer true.

[His Infernal Majesty]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

mega upload obeyed valid DMCA takedown notices they should have had immunity

How do you know they obeyed valid DMCA notices? There are documented cases where they knowingly allowed material they know was stolen to still exist on their servers, as well, as leaving the file up internally but changing the link to deceptively make it appear the file was removed. Not to mention not stopping repeat offenders while continuing to pay them to continue to steal.

but the very technology that allowed independent musicians to get paid when their stuff was stored on mega upload was used as a justification to void their immunity.

Why do the rights of some independent musicians trump the rights of everyone else's material? I still am waiting for you to show me one independent musician who made any kind of real money from MU. Do you think they would open their books and show that amount themselves? Surely showing they made $30 million/year by selling independently produced music would free them from their legal woes. I would bet not even 1% of that amount was produced that way. Conjecture on my part, as well as yours. I feel they made it harder for independent producers, actually. They drove down the value of their work and strengthened the grip of the labels on the internet.

first of all your exclusive rights are granted in exchange for blanket immunity for anything fair use. So unless your recognizing that implicit granting of permission (by claiming the copyright in the first place) your actually trying to turn a conditional monopoly into a absolute monopoly.

A monopoly is a business that has no competition to set a reasonable price point. I surely do not own the top 1 and 2 top grossing businesses in my sector. I cannot stop someone from making a tube site and releasing all their own content for free. I do have the right to stop them from doing it with my content let alone profiting from it, though. If someone is making money uploading my content to a file forum that is fair use? If the filelocker knows this same user is doing this over and over again and still paying them, that is fair use?

When people play games like this, is when stricter laws come into play.

but that only because copyright and ip have been given special exclusion because it was "impossible" to make money without those special protections.

The razor case study proves that condition is no longer true.

It is not impossible for Apple to make money if Psystar exists, but the court still deemed their actions illegal.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by His Infernal Majesty

How do you know they obeyed valid DMCA notices? There are documented cases where they knowingly allowed material they know was stolen to still exist on their servers, as well, as leaving the file up internally but changing the link to deceptively make it appear the file was removed. Not to mention not stopping repeat offenders while continuing to pay them to continue to steal.

bullshit that not what the accusation says

They uploaded the file once, and use link pointers to that file rather then storing it dozens of times

They left the file up on the server and only removed the links that were DCMA leaving non DCMA links as active.


But think about, some people were using that service as a backup for their bought content. If i didn't share the link, with anyone, used it only for myself deleting the copy denies me my right to backup content i paid for.


The law says you must remove the ACCESS to the file, not the file itself, youtube keeps the file up even though the access is blocked.

Your interpretation would mean that if my online backup password was hacked rather then just change the password they would have to destroy my backup.

If access is all that is necessary to be removed under the wording of the law, their actions are perfectly legal, if you need to destroy the file (with the backup consequences i listed) then they are illegal. But the court hasn't ruled yet

And under the current legal system where you are innocent until proven guilty

Their argument is the only one you should consider valid

Why do the rights of some independent musicians trump the rights of everyone else's material?

I am saying the right of those artist should be balanced equally against the rights of everyone else. And the solution benefits everyone should be chosen.

Rather then taking away the $7342 that dan bull made by using file lockers as radio station the establish artist could spend 100/month to hire a takedown service to take down the PUBLIC (and therfore infringing links). And if dan bull want to have access to the radio he can spend the 3-5 k a month to hire a good publist to get him real radio play, rather then shutting down all the radio stations don't give him equal time.

I still am waiting for you to show me one independent musician who made any kind of real money from MU. Do you think they would open their books and show that amount themselves? Surely showing they made $30 million/year by selling independently produced music would free them from their legal woes. I would bet not even 1% of that amount was produced that way. Conjecture on my part, as well as yours. I feel they made it harder for independent producers, actually. They drove down the value of their work and strengthened the grip of the labels on the internet.

JC releases his stuff under creative common, in essence he generates sales because other people (fans/profiteers) submit his stuff to the file lockers, share them with their friends . Those fans are paid by that affiliate program

He get a free army of grunts to promote himself, which resulted in the sales he got.

Dan bull said he makes a little over 7 k year from file locker commissions for releasing his own stuff.

A monopoly is a business that has no competition to set a reasonable price point. I surely do not own the top 1 and 2 top grossing businesses in my sector. I cannot stop someone from making a tube site and releasing all their own content for free. I do have the right to stop them from doing it with my content let alone profiting from it, though. If someone is making money uploading my content to a file forum that is fair use? If the filelocker knows this same user is doing this over and over again and still paying them, that is fair use?

When people play games like this, is when stricter laws come into play.

But the supreme court declared copyright to be a monopoly.

So your argument is actually, totally bullshit statement that the supreme court is wrong because i don't want them to right.


That as valid as me saying nothing is piracy because i don't want it to be.

It is not impossible for Apple to make money if Psystar exists, but the court still deemed their actions illegal.

and that why we need the fair use of access shifting.

If standard oil had said you can only sell our gas if you buy our over priced gas pumps they would have gotten broken up and their monopoly would have been taken away from them.

Yet judges who know that copyright has been declared to be a monopoly by the supreme court, don't apply normal sherman anti trust laws to copyright because fair use is the only valid balance to the SUPREME COURT DEFINED monopoly power.

[gideongallery]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...me-sense.shtml

However, before we get into the details, I will say that I do think that things may be worse for a specific segment of musicians -- and it's a segment that Lowery may fall into. Things are almost certainly worse if you were just sorta marginally successful under the old model and you have no interest in putting in much effort. Superstars are superstars no matter what -- and thanks to the nature of viral culture, that still gets them propelled to superstardom these days. But lower down in the market things have changed. The folks who used to completely fail out of the music world now have lots of interesting new ways to make money. And that means that there's more competition from below for the moderately successful acts -- who were neither superstars nor failures under the old system. Acts like Cracker and Camper van Beethoven. Suddenly, folks like David Lowery have a lot more competition for attention, and if he does nothing to leverage the new tools that are available, it wouldn't surprise me if he's worse off today than in the past. But that's for him. It's likely that for the vast majority of other musicians, the situation is quite different.

[porno jew]