Death of an industry? We can only hope, and try to make it happen.

| | Comments (39) | TrackBacks (0)

This one is off the wall, but I'm getting tired of it. Almost every time I look at the news, the RIAA or the MPAA is filing a lawsuit that is aimed at keeping a dieing business model alive. The idea of paying $20 dollars for a DVD to which $1 goes to the artists that produced the movie seems crazy. The idea of paying $15 for an album when the artist that performed it makes a few cents from it is crazy. Both of these are especially crazy when you consider the cost of making a duplicate over the internet is pennies for either.

I do not advocate piracy!

What I do advocate is a change in business model.

The RIAA and the MPAA are continually fighting what is happening in the real world -- they are mired in their own view of how things ought to be. They want to force "fair use" out the window and force people to be paying more and more often. I've lived through the development of the internet. Companies will either adapt or perish. At this point, I would prefer both the RIAA and the MPAA to perish. They offer nothing of any real import to the world. Real import would be innovative. Real import would be outstanding literature.

The recent movies and the music of popular culture has degraded to the point where it is no longer of any value in lifting the moral fabric of society. Do we really need to see more gratuitous sex, experience more senseless violence, hear more profanity? I think not. If we stopped watching movies that have any association with the MPAA and stopped listening to music associated with the RIAA we could likely put such a crimp in them that they would go out of business. If 3 months doesn't do it, then extend to 6.

I'm tired of gestapo tactics -- especially when there are alternatives. (Weird Al, thanks for "Don't Download This Song" and all the rest that find a way to make money outside the dieing business model of vinyl and VCR.)

The copyright laws are supposed to support innovation. We need innovation in the business model of artistic production. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the only way to make it necessary is to find a way to let the old model die as it should. Artists need to make money, distribution channels do not.

I'm not saying what the model should be. I leave that to people that can push the innovation and make real contributions to the world -- and no, that is not a cop out, it is saying that while I don't have the solution, what is there now is of such low quality, and has such a lock on the system that it needs to be taken out of the way in order to find a solution.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Death of an industry? We can only hope, and try to make it happen..

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1344

39 Comments

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

Remember what the fax machine did to the teletype machine? And to Western Union's business model for not embracing the fax ?

ACTivist said:

The business model would change if people would stay away from the product content you mentioned. Whether it is fair to the artist or not, they are just as culpable as the rest of their industry. You have to stop the want or need to affect the change.

Eric the 1/2 troll said:

Brian and I agree on something - 100% - very perceptive post.

There is a REASON they call it the PERFORMING arts.

I also noticed a trend toward the RIAA producing artists aimed at the "tween" or younger - the advent of the Disney age in popular music. Could it be that they are the only ones willing to actually PAY for studio produced music these days (or rather their parents are willing to pay for them)?

One great (and legal) site that promotes the new/old model of PERFORMING arts in music is www.archive.org
This is a spinoff of the Deadhead tape trading community and is 100% legal, artist approved, and outside the RIAA.

Nice post, Brian.

Sanity said:

Wow! We all agree? (The heavens must be ready to split.)

Jacob said:

This is an issue that is NOT partisan. Brian is right (again). The idea of spending $15 on a CD that I myself could burn for a nickel is completely nuts.

Anybody has thoughts on what a viable business model would look like?

With the internet, artists do not need to go to the 'labels' anymore. With places like napster(sp?), this may already be happening.

An artist could then sell a copy of a song for pennies, as opposed to the $1 price tag I saw the last time I bothered going to a commercial website.

Tho low cost itself could discourage piracy. Also, a copied file could be made to still play the song (as opposed to Madonna cheerful slogan) but the audio that comes with it would be disabled or some other fair use constraint.

zimzo said:

Don't be scared, Brian, but I agree with you completely.

stay puft said:

the deal with the RIAA is they want people to believe that without a mega-industry to produce cds we would be living in a society without music. Well I say there's never been such a society in the history of human civilization, and if the recording industry disappeared tomorrow we'd still have music in America.

a viable business model would be to let the recording industry collapse, let independent artists record music, distribute it freely, relying on the internet as a form of advertising. If they're good, people will listen, the more people hear their music the more people will want to see them live and buy their t-shirts or whatever. Their revenue would be based mostly on ticket sales, which is where musicians get most of their money now anyway (i think)

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
The RIAA is run by and for the owners of the music production companies. Not surprised that they proclaim their absolute necessity.

I was thinking internet bulletin boards with an ability to download. Think of it as the nations record shop. The key is the net, we do not need distributors anymore.

jacob said:

zimzo,
This is interesting, you, I and Marshmallow are in agreement. If Jack says he agrees, will the universe simply wink out of existence?

Sanity said:

I agree. Especially not for songs which are such small files.

jacob said:

Insanity,
Are we in agreement? This could induce a coronary.

Sanity said:

Don't want that! If y'all get coronaries, who can I convert. :-)

I was looking around for the number of Republicans. I was going to be funny and say something like "Hmm. One down...69,999,999 to go!" Instead I found this site. I have no idea who the Pew Research people are, but I liked it!

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312

Jack said:

"Don't want that! If y'all get coronaries, who can I convert. :-)"

The public schools continue to pump out ignoramuses. So long as you control the public schools, there will be no shortage of socialists.

jacob said:

Insanity,
clutching my chest, writhing in pain, must keeping breathing ... I will fight on from the grave. Yaaaggh.

Ya sicko. You want to kill 70M American but Chaney is evil. Go you on record too. Just wait! The knock on the door is coming in the dead of night. ;-)

BTW if you guys really believe Americans are being jailed for disagreeing with Uber-Fuhrer Chaney why do ya keep flapping your gums in front of the camera and typing on these blog sights that are infested with ...
dun dun dun Republicans bwahahah.

Because if you believe what you write, you are morons.

just curious.

stay puft said:

"The key is the net, we do not need distributors anymore."

It's good for the environment, too!


(who said, "Americans are being jailed for disagreeing with Uber-Fuhrer Chaney"? I didn't.)

Sanity said:

Jack, you really need to take your meds. I'm still not sure whether you think we're Socialists or Fascists. You keep switching gears on me! I'm not either one, but I'm sure I'm closer to being a Socialist.

BTW Jacob: I never said we WOULD get jailed for disagreeing with Cheney, just that if Cheney had a CHOICE he would probably jail us.

Fortunately, there's enough "Socialists" around to counteract you "Fascists" so Cheney doesn't have quite that much power. :-)

Jack said:

You are socialists, as in the National SOCIALIST Party.

Sanity said:

Ok, then we agree that the Dems are the Socialists and the Repubs are the Fascists.

The Fascists were certainly efficient, I'll grant them that.

Of course, now doing away with the RIAA and MPAA seems more Socialist than I would have expected from y'all. Power to the people! What's up?

Jack said:

Nope, the "Demonrat" Party gets BOTH labels, socialist and fascist.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"(who said, "Americans are being jailed for disagreeing with Uber-Fuhrer Chaney"? I didn't.)"
you did not, but I think insanity said something to that effect elsewhere on the blog.

As for using the net instead of crating, packaging and distributing jewel cases with cd's in them, yeah that is probably a more enrgyeffiicent and therefore cheaper means of delivery.

Wow we're two for two. I am waiting for the meteor.

ACTivist said:

Brian,
I'm sorry your thread got messed up but it is like you, me and everyone else has been saying about this guy. Not only is he always wrong, he is so whacked he can't keep track as to what thread needs his comments. Weren't we talking about infant mortality? :-)

Jack said:

ACTivist,
inSanity had tried to comment in the correct thread, but it got caught in the filter, probably for having too many links. I have deleted his comments here, and published the one in the September 11th thread.

ACTivist said:

Jack,
Don't know about filters and Sanity? has my apology for the "wrong thread" statement. The always wrong and whacked statement stands!

This was a little crazy. It is almost as if the blog was in chaotic behavior and had a strange attractor that pulls it inevitably toward one of a set of subjects.

jacob said:

Brian,
Insanity is new here. I think he is a pal of zimzo's. Once he gets paper trained he will keep his mess off of the carpet, I hope.

Your idea regarding the beginning of the end of the music industry as we know is a great one.

Sanity said:

Yeah, sorry about the weird post. I got taken to a screen I'd never seen before. I'll keep my links to a minimum. I'm glad that's the reason why. I thought it was because I insulted Jack too many times in it or something.

ACTivist, I agree that you're always wrong and whacked.

I have no idea who zimzo is.

I like what you're saying about the music industry, though. I've been saying the same things to my conservative friends for years. They're pretty pro-business and anti-individual rights (kind of like Scalia). Glad you've seen the light!

Jack said:

"I have no idea who zimzo is."

Don't lie, inSanity. Since Jacob put up his last post, I did a little investigating of my own. Either you were channelling zimzo on Sept 1st at 21:53:41, or he was at your house.

Sanity said:

No chance Jack. I was at the Nationals game at the time and I had house guests (if one of my house guests is zizmo, I would be shocked).

Do you fellas need some IP address education? I assume you know the difference between a static and non-static IP? And what a proxy server is and what it does?

Jack said:

Indeed I do. My work even now involves sockets and Web Services. The fact remains that someone posted under the name zimzo, once, on Sept. 1st. Someone has posted as Sanity from that address eight times, most recently on Sept 6th at 9:19 and 9:26. If these posts are not from you, please let us know.

I can understand someone's posting as "jack" that is not me. It is a common name. (It turned out to be a schizophrenic moonbat.) However, others posting as zimzo and Sanity cannot be a mistake. (Someone with a VERY similar address, probably the same person, also posted as zimzo twice, and once as you (Sanity) on the 9th at 20:36 under the "September 11th" post. (That was one of the group I deleted to fix the mix-up with the filter, multiple posts, and posting to the wrong topic.) I suspect now that that person is NOT you, because it was posted at 20:36, and you also posted from your usual address at 20:35 and 20:44! (You actually had seven posts within an hour of each other, and only that one came from a different address. I know quite a lot about dynamic IP addresses, and I can tell you that that does not happen.

You and zimzo have been spoofed. My apologies. Indeed, my DEEPEST apologies for associating you with zimzo.

If you notice posts with you nom de plume, let us know.

BTW, there was another name associate with your address in the past. Did you use another name before taking up "Sanity"?

zimzo said:

Don't you have anything better to do, Jack, than investigate our IP addresses?

I have no idea who Sanity is and your "investigation" is a perfect example of right-wing paranoia and incompetence. First, you assume that anyone disagreeing with you must be part of some nefarious conspiracy. Then, you spy on us (privacy not being a big concern of yours) and announce triumphantly that your bizarre theory has been confirmed. Then you realize that you botched the investigation and your intelligence was wrong. At least no one has died as a result of your paranoia and incompetence.

Jack said:

No, zimzo, Jacob just noticed a pattern of misspellings and grammatical errors in many different names, so we started looking. He was correct, too. The idiot posted under 22 names and anonymously.

Once we got started, it was easy to look at a few other "persons of interest." You and inSanity matched three times on two different addresses. I found that odd. It does seem you two have been spoofed.

Sanity said:

On September 11th around 8:30, I definitely messed up. I tried to post the one with the four links and it didn't take, so I tried a couple more times. Still didn't work, so I broke it up into three pieces and they all went. That might be seven posts? But all should have been from the same address.

Then you, correctly, took one of the originals and posted it where I had intended. I guess my lack of blog knowledge was to blame. Thanks for doing that. It would have been embarrassing if they all showed up. (Of course, you may be thinking "Sanity, if your posts aren't embarrassing you, surely, this wouldn't." But I digress.

If the first field in the "zimzo 9/1" address in question (and mine on 9/6)is "85", that was probably from anonymouse.org, one of a bunch of "anonymizer" web sites. I needed to use that for a few days because of technical reasons. Maybe zimzo used the same site?

Or maybe zimzo works for the same company I do? That's possible. There are a few hard-core Dem's here. We would all show up as the same address. In that case, he's smarter than me and logs in through the company web connection even when he's not working?

I don't mind being associated with zimzo as it is nice (as I'm sure you know) to have someone agree with your posts. Obviously, on a conservative blog that won't happen as much for people with a liberal bent.

It's also so much easier to be "over the top" and talk on a blog in ways much different than you would in "real life". Not sure if that makes if more fun or more annoying. Maybe both.

Sanity said:

On September 11th around 8:30, I definitely messed up. I tried to post the one with the four links and it didn't take, so I tried a couple more times. Still didn't work, so I broke it up into three pieces and they all went. That might be seven posts? But all should have been from the same address.

Then you, correctly, took one of the originals and posted it where I had intended. I guess my lack of blog knowledge was to blame. Thanks for doing that. It would have been embarrassing if they all showed up. (Of course, you may be thinking "Sanity, if your posts aren't embarrassing you, surely, this wouldn't." But I digress.

If the first field in the "zimzo 9/1" address in question (and mine on 9/6)is "85", that was probably from anonymouse.org, one of a bunch of "anonymizer" web sites. I needed to use that for a few days because of technical reasons. Maybe zimzo used the same site?

Or maybe zimzo works for the same company I do? That's possible. There are a few hard-core Dem's here. (MUCH more hard core than I am.) We would all show up as the same address. In that case, he's smarter than me and logs in through the company web connection even when he's not working?

I don't mind being associated with zimzo as it is nice (as I'm sure you know) to have someone agree with your posts on occasion. Obviously, on a conservative blog that won't happen much for people with a liberal bent.

It's also so much easier to be "over the top" and talk on a blog in ways much different than you would in "real life". Not sure if that makes it more fun or more annoying. Maybe both.

zimzo said:

You're exactly right, Sanity. I did use Anonymouse because I was on someone else's computer and I didn't want their privacy compromised. After Joe blamed the entire gay community for a posting by an obviously deranged and person and publicized their IP address, it's a precaution I sometimes take. Never can be too careful when you are dealing with people for whom privacy is obviously not a big concern. The liberal commenters whom Jacob supposedly revealed to be sock puppets after spending hours of his apparently not very valuable time doing an exhaustive investigation could very well be using anonymizers as well. When paranoia is combined with technical incompetence the results can be frightening indeed.

Jack said:

Sanity, I have the same problems occasionally, but I can go in and publish what gets caught. If you see that screen again, either break up your post, or just post a quick "Hey, I got caught in the spam filter again!" message and one of us will publish it. (It's just to keep out spam that has lots of links to sex and Viagra sites. The trouble is, I like lots of reference data!)

Of those seven posts, only one came from the 85 site. Did you try posting that way to see whether you had been blocked?

Zimzo, have you used that "anonymizer"? (I really hope so. I'd hate to think that anyone is spoofing someone else.)

Jack said:

Sorry, zimzo, we got our posts crossed. MYSTERY SOLVED. Thank you both, and my apologies again for the misunderstanding.

I trust with one guy posing as 22, you can understand my suspicion when someone else comes on at the same time with the same political leanings.

Sanity said:

You know, I probably did try once from the 85 address. Good thought! I'm not one to give up too quickly!

jacob said:

All,
I thought this was the music thread?

Man are you people confused.

Sanity said:

Jacob,

Since you seem to be in such a snit today, maybe this song will help. (This IS a music thread, right?)

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY THEME SONG

(sung to the tune of "I Walk The Line"; with deep apologies to Johnny Cash)

I keep a close watch on those polls of mine
They're really helpful since I lack a spine
It seems to me surrendering's just fine
So when its time, I moan and whine

I find it very, very easy to change views
And when I do its always makes the News
It really is a very simple ruse
So when its time, I moan and whine

As sure as right is wrong and good is bad
Appeasing terrorism makes me glad
Because I sure don't want to make them mad
So when its time, I moan and whine

There's no way for me to stay on just one side
There are no principles to which I can subscribe
I simply float along on every tide
And when its time, I moan and whine

I keep a close watch on those polls of mine
They're really helpful since I lack a spine
It seems to me surrendering's just fine
So when its time, I moan and whine

This was posted by a "Dr. Sanity" (obviously no relation).

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM