ah.fm Countdown, Independent music, Ramblings on Creative Commons

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:06 pm

jonquiles wrote:

Beautifully noted...I agree that we need to see more of an adoption of CC licensing....this of course means artist will be morally and financially satisfied WHEN their material is downloaded on the internet. A relevant fact is that our culture as a whole is moving too fast for corporations to keep up with it (and when I say keep up with it I do unfortunately mean profit from it. With organizations like the MPAA and RIAA who represent on a contemporary corporate level the people who provide the lubrication and fuel for our culture as a whole{those people being our entertainment influences.} ...it still baffles me when people wonder why people insist on stealing music and movies and then distributing that stolen material to fellow thieves. It is NOT because they are criminals and pirates. Our laws work in such a way that the MPAA and RIAA have the ability to assign the disposition of "theft" to this behavior/mode of distribution of their material because it PREVENTS them from profiting. The IH mode of acquiring audio and visual material that artists represented by the MPAA and RIAA have produced by what used to be consumers and are now users is not stealing IT IS WHAT THEY SHOULD ADOPT AS A BUSINESS MODEL. We want to have a choice of what we want to hear and see, not just whatever happens to be in isle's 1-6 with the top 10 CD's with the highest profit margin at the front of the store with vibrant signage...or whatever happens to be on iTunes (iTunes, don't get me wrong, is a HUGE step in the right direction, but the most profitable songs are still promoted more than the songs with the highest user rating and most votes, and there is no ability for user generated content). People are realizing there IS NOT a cultural NEED to be a consumer, they want what is relevant and superior according to their tastes...we have more content than we ever have as a culture to consume and the way people access it upsets out-dated business models that depend on systems like IH and Pirate Bay NOT EXISTING for profit. Based on the speed of progression in our culture, IH and Pirate Bay have filled nearly ALL SYSTEMATIC GAPS in the way people (aka consumers / users) need to access information, the gaps that the MPAA and RIAA fill...quite fraknly THEY KNOW now that we have IH and Pirate Bay we literally don't need them, and there is a waiting shift in the way we promote and access consumer A/V. Now, we are always going to be consumers on some level whether we like it or not, that fact is why I completely disagree with you when you say that the mind state and behavior of The Pirate Bay will get them nothing but negative labels from those in the power chair. If all of the content that the MPAA and RIAA own was promoted and distributed with the isohunt way of getting content out to the public from day 1 on the internet as soon as the technology was so was rendered, we would all be singing a different tune. It's not theft, it's life. . The fact that contemporary corporate culture cannot adopt modes of content distribution as quickly as OUR CULTURE can, DOES NOT MAKE US CRIMINALS . They (corporations in question) can't be surprised at this fact, they are corporations of hundreds or thousands, facing a culture of millions, and they are the ones that chose to start the fight.

Now, I do not agree with what IH is doing by integrating their filtering system...it is satisfying an old business model that is clearly out dated...I don't believe this is a step in the right direction...which of course is moving ALL PARTIES INVOLVED towards using the torrent system and systems like it INSTEAD buying music and movies the way they want us to, at huge markups from stores that mark them up even higher once they purchase them from distributors. Of course I do not know anything about what people from IH do when the lawyers enter the room, so I am aware of the fact that this is quite possibly a very ignorant statement...so feel free to rip it apart and educate me...But doing this seems like the MPAA and RIAA have succeeded in preventing the torrent system of distribution from moving forward into the culture. With everything the MPAA and RIAA have done to keep the system down and out instead of embracing it and replacing it with their current business model, giving them the freedom to to delete content as they see fit to me seems like hiring a consultant to fire 3o of your employees, all of whom have been with the company for years and great records. They aren't embracing our culture by being given the ability to do this, they are being put even closer to a position where they can tear it down. I have no legal background, I am a graphic designer, video production artist, and singer. I have gigabytes upon gigabytes s of content that I have been able to promote FOR FREE THANKS TO IH AND SITES LIKE PIRATE BAY. Have I made any money from promoting this way...not nearly enough for the effort I have put in...but again, it is not a crime on the MPAA or RIAA's part for doing things their way that prevent ME the artist and user from profiting using my model of promotion and distribution, thats life. As far as movies are concerned...It IS modes of profitability like the ones the MPAA and RIAA practice that enable production houses to spend $70 Million on a movie WE WANT TO SEE. They spend $70 Million to entertain us we pay nothing using our method of accessing information...Seems like they would want to destroy that method...Next year should be interesting...MPAA and RIAA licensed material freely distributed on torrent sites through subscription services? Unlimited access to their libraries....MPAA and RIAA don't seem like the type's to let that grow on them...it's services like Joost and distributors like IH that are the wave of the future...though we'll probably have to give it about 10 years Cool

, until then, happy downloading.

The Long Tail of media is what mainstream and physical distribution cannot compete with online, and that's besides the cost advantage. How many movies can you show in cinemas? How many DVDs can you stock in a video store? This is why Netflix and Amazon is successful. Because they offer more items that you may want than any physical store or venue can.

As for filtering, copyright owners do have rights to what they want with how their stuff is distributed. Whether you think it's right or wise for business, it's their choice. And more are catching on, with iTunes and Amazon MP3's. When more are open to online distribution, licensing like CC will become increasingly relevant.

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:12 am

I've read the posts and most were interesting for the information on this subject which, frankly, I know little about; beyond having young'ens to help me get around the web to find material, I am truly in the dark as to where to go and what to do upon arrival.

Simply, I like music from yesterday and that can be difficult to find in stores or online catalogs. Not so difficult amongst file-sharers - hoo-ray !

Question : Surely there are workable business models after all these years with the web ? Workable as in profitable ??

I find it hard to understand how ad companies can be starving for places to advertise on the net and no one has employed a scheme to combine file sharing and ad revenue in a manner acceptable to the old fak-heads that run the riaa and mpaa as well as those of us who desire to choose what we are willing to buy and what we believe it is worth paying when we wish to be entertained. I guess I can only hope I outlive that generation.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:29 am

I like this topic, IH, bravo on your stand.

I've been around the internet scene for 10 years, I simply don't accept snail mail anymore, all of my bills are paid online and if a service doesn't offer that option I don't use it.

The problem that I see with a lot of peoples view points is something that the RIAA, MPAA and other major corporations have created. They have created a mantra that the next big thing is must have and therefore if I have no money for it I have to steal it. I was speaking with my mother of all people who grew up when times were REALLY TOUGH and if she couldn't afford it she simply went without.

WENT WITHOUT!?!?!? most people growing up in the last 20 years could never grasp that concept. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE NEXT BIG THING...NO MATTER WHAT!!!

I look at what the RIAA, MPAA are doing and it sickens me, I feel like they are ripping us off! How many saw the movie The Simpsons, watched the opening sequence with a theater full of people watching Itchy and Scratchy and Homer gets up and spouts off about being ripped off because they could watch this on tv (don't exactly remember cause i only watched it once and that's all I'll ever watch it). Then walked out of the theater after 1hour 15 minutes (thats generous, probably closer to an hour and 5 minutes) and totally felt ripped off that you payed $10 to watch a double length tv show? I've gotten far more enjoyment from and epesoide of Heroes.

I own the music from the bands I truly enjoy and I trek across the country to go to their concerts. But like others have said I refuse to pay for a product that I use once and never use again. I test games all the time, the only game I truly enjoy playing (or actually play) is Americas Army and its free.

I've download tons of programs and have half them installed, but if you could check how many times I've actually used the software you would be lucky to find more then 5 programs I have used more then 5 times in the last year.

OiNK is the perfect example of a service that provided exactly what the consumer wanted, the big companies will shut OiNK down and 10 will fill its void, The RIAA and MPAA will fail, ultimately the price gouging of albums and their reluctance to move into the digital age will be their undoing. They need to put together media that people want, 5.1 audio and enhanced DVD's with exclusive content at a reasonable price are the only way they will be able to win consumers back.

Like others have said I refuse to pay $600 for software like photoshop or office, so i don't use it. Don't become a puppet and buy something because the big companies have brainwashed you into believing you need it.

If your a student and you don't have money like myself? Then use some self control, if you have any, and do without!!

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:01 pm

[quote="cdnFan"]I like this topic, IH, bravo on your stand.

"... They have created a mantra that the next big thing is must have and therefore if I have no money for it I have to steal it. "

"I own the music from the bands I truly enjoy and I trek across the country to go to their concerts. But like others have said I refuse to pay for a product that I use once and never use again."

"I've download tons of programs and have half them installed, but if you could check how many times I've actually used the software you would be lucky to find more then 5 programs I have used more then 5 times in the last year."

"OiNK is the perfect example of a service that provided exactly what the consumer wanted,..."

"Like others have said I refuse to pay $600 for software like photoshop or office, so i don't use it. Don't become a puppet and buy something because the big companies have brainwashed you into believing you need it."

"If your a student and you don't have money like myself? Then use some self control, if you have any, and do without!!"

Firstly, forgive me for messing with your post but, I'd like to reply to the comments I selected as I can identify more closely with them and they highlight my own beliefs on this subject.

I agree with the logic you're applying towards the RIAA and MPAA and their current business model. It's nothing more than an overlay of past policies designed to keep them in control of each aspect of their industry.
I tend to think world policies and or market forces these groups cannot influence will be their ultimate downfall. Simply, they piss with enough governments and there will, likely, be a backlash they cannot deal with. Bribes, market monoplies, threats, intimidation can't compete with giving the people what they want. At least, I continue to beleive that's the way it should work.

I too, purchase the music from my favorite bands, when I can find them but, I have trouble dealing with the idea these bands will not receive their fair share of the profit owing to the way the RIAA distributes these monies.
Especially, older music that probably should already be a part of Creative Commons but, isn't due to copywrite law.

I think the rules of business these groups follow cannot help but make anyone who stands up as a free thinking individual into a thief and criminal, by their definition but certainly never my own !

Not a student in the formal sense but, always trying to keep an open mind so some of what I learn has a home. Envy your ability to travel to see your favorite groups, wish I had the time and finances.
Be well and stay positive !

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:12 pm

I read through the article. I'm new here but not to the scene.

first off i gather you wrote that cause you own this site or something cool.

b4 i sing praises i just wanted to say, please dont hint about an experience you had with your lawers and then say"but im not telling you) whats the point of that other than abusing your own forums for the purpose of ego?

That said you are perfectly right. And all you people that say "oh but what if i cant afford a game should i have to go without?" frankly yes. BUT only when the price reaches an acceptable level. im in the uk and when the supernova site went down all that time ago, lables over here started pushing up thier prices agian. guess they thought the threat was gone so they could carry on screwing the consumer. It's not the artist that screws people. that is why we should be careful not to hurt the wrong people. To me the whole dealhas ALWAYS been i will rip stuff with everyone else, throught he threats , the various copy protections everything. Because we knew one day it might lead to them finally backing down and agreeing that things need to be priced more fairly and thus also making them available to a wider spectrum of people.

It has been said that the only reason this deal isn't already worked out is simple..no matter how fair or how reasonable, greedy people will always want something for nothing. by that i mean if isohunt mininova places like that either charged a small fee, or the companies did through them , there would always be the "variable" that people wouldn't consider that they had eeked out a fantastic deal. instead there will always be sites and people dedicated to getting everything free. funny enough same sort of people that blow money on a 300 quid console then moan cause they cant afford the games. There have been concerns that any solution put bon the table to ALL p2p networks may be screwed by just a few people not jumping onboard.

This is so sad because it's what we have been fighting for for years. NOT FREE JUST AFFORDABLE.

I love the idea of pay what you think it is worth. because THIS way if people are fair, nobody pays over the top, by the same token copyright would be satisfied in that even a small amount of money for each dowload means where they were making nothing, suddenly all the downloaders would be actully helping put money to the artist's. but as the guy who wrote the article said, without copyright being twisted into extortion.

It's always been about fairness, and about sticking up fopr ourselves because no one else would.

Now we are at a point where a victory on both sides seems at least possible, it angers me to see people defending not wanting to pay ANYTHING. how can you defend it? look deep inside yourself do you really mean it? If so maybe we are the thieves and scum they percieve us to be.

Personally i just dont like having the **** taking out of me, if a realistic affordable service does come to light im in. i will support it, cause if we dont..well get real the internet gets tighter and tighter, how long do you think it will take if they think we cant be reasoned with? This could be one of the most exciting times since i saw the firs at price rises during the days of the amiga games jumped from 10-35 pound overnight and never recovered. if someone is prepared to meet you halfway then it all you from there, if you dont wanna budge then you gotta be prepared for what comes..or doesn't.

sorry for the ramble, have a good new year!

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:41 am

*jugsbunny* -

You ramble and punctuate worse than me ! lol

You need to ask, if the entertainment groups are ready to meet their customers half-way, who determines where "half-way" is located ?

I still belive the biggest roadblock for fair play for fair pay is simple greed.
Greed and I would speculate that the people who are tasked with deciding the course of action for their respective firms have been overwhelmed with possibilites of the technology invoived and instead of trying to determine the best method of applying technology to produce and distibute their products in a fair and balanced manner, they choose to find better methods to more completely control all aspects of the industry.
There are enough examples of enterpises that are making money from using the available technology to make me believe that the riaa and mpaa can do at least as well if not better.

Btw,
Did you ascribe the ownership of this site to me ?!?
If you did, I will state absolutely that I do not even know the owner(s) and do not have a clue who, what, when or where concerning the owner(s). I do admire their philosophy and purpose, however.

I operate a tavern in the middle of the USA and I don;t have the skill nor inclination for this kind of stuff.

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:14 am

I agree with your thoughts, except in one perspective. Why should Any artist, Britney Spears or some Canadian band, be the ones on top of society?

Music, as an artform, is propably the most lucrative in the world. (Perhaps with movies just above or below.) I cannot understand why, we should have to pay so much for something that is worth half as much.

I love music and movies, but my philosophy is, that at some point, Marx will be right, and owning stuff will be outdated. At that point, artists will only earn just as much as everybody else! Which is the fairest thing.

I have nothing against buying, and I also believe everybody deserve to be paid for their hard work. I just believe our culture has developed these artists in to being money-making machines, and therefore I feel it is a greater sin to pay them, than not to!

Also, downloading can be a good way to find out, whether you want to buy it or you won't. Not everyone deserves Your money, only those you really want to listen to. And if you had to by everything to hear it, you would end up with a lot of crap. Sharing means, all that is good, strong and worthy Lives!

-BT

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm

So I know this forum post is a little stale, but every day the topic evolves. As I read through the numerous explanations to justifying each individuals choice to pirate media, I think it boils down to one core concept: because you can.

I remember the first days of Napster, queuing up loads of media to later be played at my high school house parties. A media free for all was so revolutionary. The Internet has undoubtedly ushered in a new form of media distribution, but the issue here is rewarding the efforts of the creator.

So yeah, this is somewhat of a plug for our recently launched website, WebCeleb avoiding url block will get you banned, but its more than that. We are proposing a free distribution system sustained by a community of supporters. Essentially creators openly distribute their media and receive donations from supporters. We sum it up with the equation: Open Distribution + Direct Support = True Appreciation of Talent.

Creative Commons is an excellent idea, but the main drawback I see is a direct support system to the creators. If we want to implement an open distribution system, we need to figure out a way to compensate the creative community. Thus, we propose not a technical hurdle to get over, but a moral one.

Alex

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:14 pm

The problem is that the great majority of people using bittorrent or p2p in general see no moral issue in their actions. They feel as if the internet has given them free reign to do as the please when they please regardless. They also do not like when you point out the fact that what they do, no matter how they or the comminity at large justify it, is illegal. Ive personaly lost count of the number of people Ive offended by stating as much, but at the end of the day its the truth. By artists work appearing in the digital domain be it legaly or illegaly, some feel that this removes any personal responsibility towards supporting artists, and the feeling I get is that as far as most people are concerned, all media should be completely free. To be honest, I cannot see that changing, ever. The blatent ignorance of some people is such that no matter how much you try to change the way of things for the better, if there is any effort required on their part, they want nothing to do with it. Everything must be handed to them on a silver platter, gratis. My opinion, its a rather disgusting attitude to have, unfortunately, common and deep rooted.

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:40 pm

OG -

I agree with your statement that most of the users of file sharing communities see no moral issue with their actions. This is a major issue, but at the same time there is no direct moral hurdle for them to go over.

P2P systems are designed to simply facilitate the distribution of media, but there is no route back to the creator. There was an earlier mention in this thread that Creative Commons could easily be the future of bit torrent. CC, is a great idea, but it again falls short with the inability to directly compensate the creator.

www.webceleb.com is proposing an alternative: provide the technology to freely experience the media online. If you wish to download the media for consumption elsewhere, then there is the option to donate directly to the creator.

Alex.

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:26 pm

ARol :
I continue to follow this topic simply because I believe there is a tremendous opportunity to change all business models that are currently used to compensate anyone who provides intellectually based work. This may also encompass everyone and everything that is sold on the web in the future.
That said, I do not susbcribe to any theory that postulates deliberate ignorance of the morality behind just compensation for work. I work and I think the majority of those who participate in web based activities must have some form of income or they would not be able to participate. Therefore, they must have knowledge of compensation for work performed by them, it seems logical to believe they would understand this is a necessity for artists who create the music/video/art work or books to get some compensation for this effort or these artists could not continue to create these things, yes ?
I beleive as OG said: "...because they can." I do not believe people will voluntarily pay for something that they can have for free. I'm walking down a sidewalk and someone hands me a cd of my favorite group and does not ask me for anything, what do I do ? I might give him a dollar as a thank you but, that doesn't help the artist(s) who created that cd.

I like your concept for the web site and I will visit.
It's not a new idea and I have seen the major shortcoming cause another site to fail but, I hope you sign up enough good talent to avoid that potential future.

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:16 pm

DeLeMa -

I agree with your analysis of those who are involved in web based activities: they must have some source of income. I also agree with Og's statement, that people will take it for free if they can. What sticks in my mind are the open candy dispensers you see in a doctors office with "Help Fight AIDS in Africe, please donate if you wish to take a piece of candy."

One of the most common justification for piracy I hear is that people want to try before they buy.On www.webceleb.com we have provided all the technology necessary to experience the media prior to download.
Its much like knowing what that York Peppermint Patty is going to to taste like so you donate 25 cents to help fight AIDS in Africa. Maybe we should remove the download free for all, and require an account to download. Those that download without support, we can start categorizing them. Obviously avatars could be easily created, and I prefer positive reinforcement, over negative, but maybe both should be used.

Its interesting to see the response to the recently released NIN CD. Many people are more than willing to support them even though their music is free on BitTorrent sites. Then again they are quite established...

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3531509609051187076&postID=5430363259794084298&isPopup=true

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:41 pm

Aro :
I have visited your site. Really nice ! I like the business paradigm. I don't see a lot of areas where anyone can bitch about your methods. You like, you buy and thereby support everyone in the food chain. Unfortunately, I didn't spend time to browse through the artists you showcase but, I'll be back as soon as i can to delve more into your site. I'll be looking for the ability to selectively purchase music, movies et al; that suit my tastes and not a box lunch of over-priced selections from some one else's idea of quality product. That has been one of the biggest complaints I have shared with many that I believe is relevant for the technology used to distribute artistic creations. It's always appeared to me that freedom to choose what you want and pay according to market value for the product is the better method to employ today and not the continuing route the mpaa and riaa follow.
When you see a candy dispenser it's almost always in a place where you are not alone. Too many think what they do at their keyboard is not observed also. I'll pay for what I take if there's a tray or container available that I know will be given to those who are supposed to receive the money.
Best wishes for you and your business !
I can do little but, I can try ?

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:00 pm

Kill Your Leader wrote:

Quote:

...take your anarchist sentiments and eat it, because all you will get is being labelled pirates and thieves and that's not cool. (the accuracy of the name calling is irrelevant)

First, I agree with most of what you said. Second, I respect that which I didn't agree with and understand your POV.

However, it's obvious you don't know much about anarchists or anarchy. We care very little, if at all, about what we're labeled. We damn sure don't care about being cool.

As far as the relevancy of the name calling, well replace "anarchist" with n*gger, spic, wet back, cracker, bible beater, bitch, or almost anything else then rethink its relevancy.

Also, please don't think you've offended or upset me. If anything your ignorance is understandable, and I'm only upset at the widespread misconception of anarchy.

I'm not attacking you, and I hope you will try to understand my position as I have tried to understand yours.

Oh, and Bravo! on your post drewster1829.

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:36 am

GOOD STUFF!