you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
virus: Re:The law and what might have been (a little help please?)
« Reply #15 on: 2003-07-24 15:06:39 »
hermi...
i can't access the article in question with the link you provided... a rare feat that this particular piece has rather captivated me instead of momentarily inflaring a passing fancy...
whatever the cause of this problem, i would like to be able to participate in this and provide my input, etc...at the least spectate so i know what it going on.
-mo cara, athenonrex
%%%%%%%%%%%%% ############################################# #~every villan is the hero of his own story~# ############################################# %%%%%%%%%%%%%
--- "David Lucifer" <hidden@lucifer.com> wrote: > > >6) The Library of Congress shall establish a fair categorization system allowing different classes of material to be rewarded at different rates. e.g. A book sized work of fiction may receive a higher royalty payment per access than a newspaper article. A cinematographic item may receive a higher payment than a musical composition. > > >Is that necessary? Maybe they only have to classify the available content as a text or a binary object and then calculate a royalty based on size. > >How much would you expect a content creator to earn per access under this system? > > >---- >This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. ><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28770> >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_____________________________________________________________ --->Get your free email @godisdead.com Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re: virus: Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #16 on: 2003-07-24 15:08:59 »
nevermind on that tech support thing, noticed that a parenthese was caught on the end of the link...
-mo cara, athenonrex
%%%%%%%%%%%%% ############################################# #~every villan is the hero of his own story~# ############################################# %%%%%%%%%%%%%
_____________________________________________________________ --->Get your free email @godisdead.com Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #17 on: 2003-07-24 17:26:20 »
you know...it's all rather funny and amusing...
i personally use a few p2p networks....
i found this particular part amusing though:
<snip>
Prime example of a practically perfect person
View Profile WWW Instant Message (Offline) Re:The law and what might have been « Reply #12 on: 2003-07-17 10:39:34 » Reply with quote New Bill Seeks Prison Time for File Swappers Source: dc.internet.com Authors: Roy Mark Dated: 2003-07-17
Legislation to make illegal file swapping a felony was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday by John Conyers (D.-Mich.) and Howard Berman (D.-Calif.).
The bill carries penalties of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for uploading a copyrighted file to a peer-to-peer (P2P) network.
<snip>
i've never been aware of being able to "upload " to the p2p network itself. i was more under the impression that people downloaded from other people VIA the network. i should like to find some information on exactly what p2p allows you to store the music on the network, and not your own computer...it would greatly decrease my downloading time, as people would not be downloading from me personally and i would not have *my* bandwidth stretched.
aside from my semantical rant in the key of Tangent Minor, the issue of MP3's, while undeniably over-exaggerated and rather exaserbated, even dramatically torrid like a romance novel (i call 'em cheap housewife porn), the issue does remain...
it is fairly cut in half, too. on the one hand yes, it is music, music is indeed art. you don't charge someone to look at a painting (normally), or to view a inner-city mural dipicting cultural diversity and communal unity.
*a bit of recording industry background*
still, on the other hand, the average band that just got signed to a label has to sell on average roughly half a million (500, 000) CDs, Tapes, Etc...to merely brake even. the band pays for studio time, production, concerts, music videos, a good portion of travel, distribution...they pay for that themselves (making one wonder why a label is needed if they [the band] do the dirty work themselves...) money from sales, royalties, etc...go to the recording label, the producers, the representatives, etc...and on average from a $15 (US$) CD, the band will make $1, to be split between the band members.
so you have four band members (US$0.25 per CD sold apiece), and about 500k CDs sold...[yay! i can do basic math! watch...] that's 125K per person in a four piece band, or 500K collectively. now....production of US$0.50/CD (that includes the cover art, recording the music onto the cd, disc art, etc...for a final product). now if the band produces only an initial 500K CDs, hoping merely to break even, that still comes out to $1 million [in cost]...
if the initial demographics for the band are appeasing to the industry Big Wigs, they'll usually pay the difference, and appropriate the revenue that was supposed to go to the band (payment for the comp), as well as raise the retail price of the CD [raising the retail from usually 10% - 25%]...if there is a remander in the overall revenue (after the amounts are sliced and fed to the appropriate respective heads), that remainder (usually pitifully small and meager) goes to the band, finally split between the four (not including the managerial cut) as their final profiet (if there was one to begin with).
and this is the best case senario if the band gets signed, does the bare minimum in production, and the record execs don't screw the band over completely (which is almost stadard practice to the point of being an unofficial rule for the industry).
we may very well be seeing one of two things here:
(1) possibly a sort of industrial darwinianism, where natural selection applies to types of music, as well as individual bands, possibly even to recording labels as a whole. this is not a new concept of even a revelation of any sort.
(2) possibly the decline of an entire industry. (in another post i'm commencing in just a few moments after i finish this one, called "jobs and human history as a whole," there are a few related themes you may be interested in if you like this so far...)
we could also be seeing any number of other things happening, but these two seem relatively more likely to me for whatever reasons...
leaving you now, with regards to this thread (for now at least)....
Re: virus: Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #18 on: 2003-07-24 18:49:44 »
I have to wonder why I am replying in this thread. I suppose it's because I can easily show you where some of your misinformation is located without wasting more than a minute or two of my time. Though I am willing to bet this goes in one ear and out the other.
I suppose I will just point out where you are wrong on this. Suffice it to say that there is not a correct statment except possibly the math, which I did not check, in relation to the following paragraphs.
"still, on the other hand, the average band that just got signed to a label has to sell on average roughly half a million (500, 000) CDs, Tapes, Etc...to merely brake even. the band pays for studio time, production, concerts, music videos, a good portion of travel, distribution...they pay for that themselves (making one wonder why a label is needed if they [the band] do the dirty work themselves...) money from sales, royalties, etc...go to the recording label, the producers, the representatives, etc...and on average from a $15 (US$) CD, the band will make $1, to be split between the band members.
so you have four band members (US$0.25 per CD sold apiece), and about 500k CDs sold...[yay! i can do basic math! watch...] that's 125K per person in a four piece band, or 500K collectively. now....production of US$0.50/CD (that includes the cover art, recording the music onto the cd, disc art, etc...for a final product). now if the band produces only an initial 500K CDs, hoping merely to break even, that still comes out to $1 million [in cost]...
if the initial demographics for the band are appeasing to the industry Big Wigs, they'll usually pay the difference, and appropriate the revenue that was supposed to go to the band (payment for the comp), as well as raise the retail price of the CD [raising the retail from usually 10% - 25%]...if there is a remander in the overall revenue (after the amounts are sliced and fed to the appropriate respective heads), that remainder (usually pitifully small and meager) goes to the band, finally split between the four (not including the managerial cut) as their final profiet (if there was one to begin with)"
You are wrong on who pays for studio time, production and music videos or distribution. You are wrong about where the money goes as well - you seem to have just lumped them together in the form of "money to the record company". You completely ignore the main sources of a musician's income. hint - it is not CD sales! In fact, CD sales, unless you are someone like Madonna or the Stones, play a tiny part to completely indignificant part. We all knew when signing our contracts that the money wouldn't come from CD's, and even plotted ways to take over more of the production and distribution (a mistake - as distributers are near-impossible to deal with without label backing).
My guess is that whoever originally strated spreading this misinformation has zero actual experience in the field and ahs spent too much time reading from others with the same level of experience - none. The blind leading the blind.
I'm not going to go into the detail for you guys, as you are still trying to figure out that the "wheel is round" so to say. I just have to wonder who would give out such poor info and then who would be sucker enough to believe it. Anyone willing to believe the paragraphs I quoted, is going into the discussion completely ill prepared and with false information. Anyone person that made the statements listed in the quoted paragraphs at an industry gathering would look quite the fool. It's my advise that you actually speak to pros aside from a "knownothing" like me. (an electronic or punk musician with no main stream appeal are NOT the people to be talking to as they are very far from the actual business end of music - and usually idealistic dreamers to boot - as in they think their product is far more valuable than it is). Letting musicians that were in the Sex Pistols, or any other non-selling band give industry tips and advise is like asking a ditch digger to explain the science of geology.
I typed this fast without error checking - sry in advance for typos or grammar errors.
A final relevant song:
Gimme Some Money By Spinal Tap
Stop wastin my time You know what I want You know what I need Or maybe you don't Do I have to come right flat out and tell you everything Gimme some money, gimme some money
I'm no-bodies fool I'm no-bodies clown I'm treating you cool I'm putting you down But baby I dont intend to leave empty handed Gimme some money, gimme some money oh yea!
Don't get me wrong Try getting me right You're face is ok But your purse is too tight I'm looking for pound notes, loose change, bad checks, anything Gimme some money, gimme some money
athe nonrex wrote:
>you know...it's all rather funny and amusing... > >i personally use a few p2p networks.... > >i found this particular part amusing though: > ><snip> > > >Prime example of a practically perfect person > >View Profile WWW Instant Message (Offline) >Re:The law and what might have been >« Reply #12 on: 2003-07-17 10:39:34 » Reply with quote >New Bill Seeks Prison Time for File Swappers >Source: dc.internet.com >Authors: Roy Mark >Dated: 2003-07-17 > >Legislation to make illegal file swapping a felony was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday by John Conyers (D.-Mich.) and Howard Berman (D.-Calif.). > >The bill carries penalties of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for uploading a copyrighted file to a peer-to-peer (P2P) network. > ><snip> > >i've never been aware of being able to "upload " to the p2p network itself. i was more under the impression that people downloaded from other people VIA the network. i should like to find some information on exactly what p2p allows you to store the music on the network, and not your own computer...it would greatly decrease my downloading time, as people would not be downloading from me personally and i would not have *my* bandwidth stretched. > >aside from my semantical rant in the key of Tangent Minor, the issue of MP3's, while undeniably over-exaggerated and rather exaserbated, even dramatically torrid like a romance novel (i call 'em cheap housewife porn), the issue does remain... > >it is fairly cut in half, too. on the one hand yes, it is music, music is indeed art. you don't charge someone to look at a painting (normally), or to view a inner-city mural dipicting cultural diversity and communal unity. > >*a bit of recording industry background* > >still, on the other hand, the average band that just got signed to a label >has to sell on average roughly half a million (500, 000) CDs, Tapes, Etc...to merely brake even. the band pays for studio time, production, concerts, music videos, a good portion of travel, distribution...they pay for that themselves (making one wonder why a label is needed if they [the band] do the dirty work themselves...) money from sales, royalties, etc...go to the recording label, the producers, the representatives, etc...and on average from a $15 (US$) CD, the band will make $1, to be split between the band members. > >so you have four band members (US$0.25 per CD sold apiece), and about 500k CDs sold...[yay! i can do basic math! watch...] that's 125K per person in a four piece band, or 500K collectively. now....production of US$0.50/CD (that includes the cover art, recording the music onto the cd, disc art, etc...for a final product). now if the band produces only an initial 500K CDs, hoping merely to break even, that still comes out to $1 million [in cost]... > >if the initial demographics for the band are appeasing to the industry Big Wigs, they'll usually pay the difference, and appropriate the revenue that was supposed to go to the band (payment for the comp), as well as raise the retail price of the CD [raising the retail from usually 10% - 25%]...if there is a remander in the overall revenue (after the amounts are sliced and fed to the appropriate respective heads), that remainder (usually pitifully small and meager) goes to the band, finally split between the four (not including the managerial cut) as their final profiet (if there was one to begin with). > >and this is the best case senario if the band gets signed, does the bare minimum in production, and the record execs don't screw the band over completely (which is almost stadard practice to the point of being an unofficial rule for the industry). > >we may very well be seeing one of two things here: > > (1) possibly a sort of industrial darwinianism, where natural selection applies to types of music, as well as individual bands, possibly even to recording labels as a whole. this is not a new concept of even a revelation of any sort. > > (2) possibly the decline of an entire industry. (in another post i'm commencing in just a few moments after i finish this one, called "jobs and human history as a whole," there are a few related themes you may be interested in if you like this so far...) > >we could also be seeing any number of other things happening, but these two seem relatively more likely to me for whatever reasons... > > >leaving you now, with regards to this thread (for now at least).... > >-mo cara, >athenonrex > > > >---- >This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. ><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28770> >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > >
-- Reason - Vision - Empathy Tools for a healthy mind
Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #19 on: 2003-07-24 19:53:23 »
[Hermit 1] 6) The Library of Congress shall establish a “fair” categorization system allowing different classes of material to be rewarded at different rates. e.g. A book sized work of fiction may receive a higher royalty payment per access than a newspaper article. A cinematographic item may receive a higher payment than a musical composition.
[Lucifer 2] Is that necessary? Maybe they only have to classify the available content as a text or a binary object and then calculate a royalty based on size.
[Hermit 3] Reasoning: I have seen e.g. very large newspaper articles (lots of images, lame encoding to PDF) and very small, useful, information-dense thesis (ascii text) and somehow doubt that the two should be of comprable value (although the newspapers might disagree). The same applies to music. A long work and a short work should be paid the same rate per performance (i.e. an industry determined flat rate per licenced "performance") as is currently the case, so it has the advantage of familiarity, and does not seem to me to pose any major implementation difficulties, cost-inefficiencies or inequities.
[Hermit 3] While there are alternatives, the one I particularly like being a "gift scheme" (which this system doesn't preclude on a one-on-one basis), the fact that the system is dividing up a common pie of unknown (but estimated) size makes alternatives a great deal more challenging, and would probably result in the requirement for a significant delay before payouts can be made (periodic income accounts would have to be closed before disbursements could be made) and increase the probability of abuse (of the "my commercial jingle is valued above your film play, so I grab more of the pot" variety). While a time lag is a "feature" of the existing royalty distribution works (artists typically see first income some year-and-a-half after it has been generated), most artists (including such doyens as Paul McCartney and John Clees), have said that they, and the artists they know, would far rather see their income arriving ASAP. This approach permits rapid reconciliation and I anticipate monthly settlements, one month in arrears.
[Hermit 3] Proposed Implementation:
[Hermit 3] I anticipate that the LOC will set a relative "rate share factor" for an "object of some well defined type". The LOC already has an entry in their catalog of items defining the type of object for existing catalog entries, and of course, new ascensions made by submitters will be labelled by the submitter, so the process will be automatic.
[Hermit 3] A user noticing the reception of a miscategorized item will simply notify the LOC (web page/mail/RPC) and the LOC would then investigate and, if necessary, update the appropriate record (logging the error against the uploader in order to detect attempted fraud).
[Lucifer 2] How much would you expect a content creator to earn per access under this system?
[Hermit 3] The actual revenues here will depend on the number of classes, the share of pool per class and the number of accesses made, all unknowns but unknowns that can be fairly well estimated. The average US purchaser spends approximately $180/year on media and this can be divided between CD purchases (six per year at an average retail price of around $12) and video and DVD purchases and rentals (the balance). Video rentals generate a relatively small residual flow back to the copyright holder (usually the studios), tape and DVD sales a little more. Actual sales typically leave a profit at both the retailer and distributor levels (a large part of the "product costing" despite the labels usually owning at least a slice of the distribution network). As these "costs" (and manufacturing costs) would be eliminated by the proposed system, this sytem is designed to approximate the value that would be received by the copyright assignee (which, for most material today, is the label) and which, on a CD, tape or DVD will approximate 30% of the sticker price.
[Hermit 3] Access to the current sales channel is completely controlled by the media distribution industry, which has allowed them to force originators to assign all rights (including rights on future sales) to themselves (see "A History Lesson" previously on this thread). As the Constitutional basis for Copyright (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 ) was actually intended to benefit the producer (" The Congress" to have the power " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"), clause 21 is intended to correct this situation.
[Hermit 3] At the end of the day, an artist who has assigned copyright to a label will receive approximately 50% of one third of the current average retail price of $12 or around $2/CD, while one who uses the new system (retaining copyright to the content producer) should see an income of $4/CD. Individual tracks would be prorated. As this is a yield significantly in excess of the current system, it will instigate, presuming that the original constitutional theory that financial incentive drives production is correct, a greater incentive to produce new works.
[Hermit 3] Film production companies would expect to see a slightly higher per unit amount than CD producers, due to the fact that DVDs sell at slightly higher prices. I suspect that they will also see a slightly higher income under the proposed regime, as this system will probably capture a share of the existing rental business, and any fall-off there would increase producer/copyright holder income, due to the higher share of profits this model will yield them.
[Hermit 3] As for "other media", this would be a new sales channel for artists, sculptors, authors, newspapers, universities (and here I see the University as the copyright asignee and the author as the producer), etc. I envisage an income ranging from the low cents per unique access for a newspaper article (perhaps an effective 4c in royalties) to a few dollars per unique access for a book (perhaps an effective $2 for a work of fiction and $4 for a text book) or painting/sculpture (and the production of "physical clones" of artworks will create a new business opportunity too).
[Hermit 3] Notice that the system as described would be, to a large extent, self adjusting. The various categories would receive a share of the pie, and the producers within it would be allocated a share of the resulting revenue based on popularity. Users, not being billed per access, would have no incentive to attempt to bypass the system. Also, as athe nonrex pointed out, the existing system frequently results in a negative cash flow for the artist. This system should minimize this risk, again providing an incentive to try new and unusual approaches so meeting the constitutional intent of copyright.
[Hermit 3] Being a new channel rather than a replacement channel, and indeed, a great deal more cost effective than the existing channels, the entire amount generated by the proposed system will tend to increase the income received by content producers rather than decrease it, and any errors in value calculation can be addressed by the adjustment of the bandwidth levy from time to time. In other words, the LOC could "borrow from" or "contribute to" to a stabilization fund in order to ensure that the amounts received by content producers remained equitable.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #20 on: 2003-07-25 02:16:02 »
Further to nasty comments to athe nonrex by the vociferous "knownothing", I did some research on the US music industry and discovered the appended article, amongst many others, confirming athe nonrex's position. The highlighted bits are relevant to the conclusions.
This article, based on industry analysis, suggests that a successful 4 piece band will nett $161,909total income/$8,490,000 total sales or $40,477.25 individual income/$8,490,000 total sales. This calculates to 1.9% of the retail price or 28.6 cents per $15 CD sold, and 0.48% of the retail price or 7.1 cents per CD sold per musician.
So we see that contrary to the "knownothing's" bloviation, athe nonrex actually overstated the situation when he assumed the musicians would earn an effective $1/$ 15 CD sold. We also see that the band does in fact, as athe nonrex stated, pay the all the production costs (and then some).
I surmise that athe nonrex didn't address the income from tours and appearances, simply because we were discussing alternative distribution channels, specifically the CDs produced by the media distribution companies, vs some form of on-line distribution, and unlike the "knownothing", recognised that the other income would happen irrespective of the specific distribution channels carrying their work.
However, common sense suggests that the musicians will probably do significantly better with any accessible online distribution policy yielding a slightly better return than with conventional distribution networks. Even more interesting is the fact that it appears that simple file swapping networks, which should have the effect of increasing awareness of musician's work amongst the public (and thus boosting their tour income) will probably, at least based on the "knownothing's" assertions here (and contrary to the "knownothing's" prior assertions that this was "stealing" or "theft"), have the effect of dramatically increasing the musician's income; such that the musicians in question might do far better writing off their losses due to file sharing - or even giving their music away on-line - rather than signing inequitable contracts binding them to larcenous distribution companies which appear determined to alienate the musician's fans and restrict the musicians exposure and audiences for the "main sources of a musician's income". Source: NY Daily News Authors: Not credited Dated: 2003-02-19
A music industry case study
A look at a mythical rock band's earnings, with actual figures compiled from industry sources:
New York City's hottest new band is Grunthead, a four-piece hard rock group from Maspeth. Because they've got buzz, the band gets a 15% royalty rate, a few points above the usual amount for a new artist.[Hermit notes that royalties vary from a low of around 9% ("unproven") to a high of 22% (The very top few musicians in the world).
Its debut, "Gruntastic," goes gold – only 128 of more than 30,000 records reached that level in 2002.
The Gold Record Gross: 500,000 albums sell at $16.98 = $8,490,000 The Grunts' royalty is 15% of retail. That's $1,273,500.
But the Contract calls for "packaging deductions" of 25%, so the gross drops to $6,367,500. Then there's promotional albums and giveaways the labels give to wholesalers, retailers, radio and the press. That's a "free goods" charge of 15%, so the gross drops another to $5,094,000. So, the band's royalty is actually: $764,100. The record company keeps the packaging and "free goods" funds. After collecting a $9.99 wholesale price, it also reaps an additional $829,900. The $3,500,000 balance goes to retailers, assuming they sell the record for list price.
Because the band was hot, they got an advance from the record company of $300,000. They spent $200,000 of that recording the album, which included a $50,000 advance to the producer. They pocketed the remaining $100,000. Additionally, the label spent $100,000 making the band's first video, which got them played on MTV2. The band owes all of this money back to the label.
So the royalty drops to $364,100.
But the band's producer also earned a 4% royalty of $203,760, of which he already received $50,000. So the band has to pay him an additional $153,760, reducing their royalty to $210,340.
After pocketing $310,340 (which includes the remaining $100,000 of the advance), the band has to pay their manager 15%, or $46,551, and give 2% of the total deal, or $101,880, to the power lawyer who got them the deal in the first place. That takes the band down to $161,909.
That's not bad money, but it's split four ways, or $40,477.25 each, about the same as a city sanitation worker with two years' experience, without health benefits, vacation and retirement fund. But with, of course, groupies.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
I have to wonder why I am replying in this thread. I suppose it's because I can easily show you where some of your misinformation is located without wasting more than a minute or two of my time. Though I am willing to bet this goes in one ear and out the other.
I suppose I will just point out where you are wrong on this. Suffice it to say that there is not a correct statment except possibly the math, which I did not check, in relation to the following paragraphs.
funny, you merely said i was wrong...you never said "why" or "how" i was wrong, or misinformed...just that i was wrong and misinformed.
You are wrong on who pays for studio time, production and music videos or distribution. You are wrong about where the money goes as well - you seem to have just lumped them together in the form of "money to the record company". You completely ignore the main sources of a musician's income. hint - it is not CD sales! In fact, CD sales, unless you are someone like Madonna or the Stones, play a tiny part to completely indignificant part. We all knew when signing our contracts that the money wouldn't come from CD's, and even plotted ways to take over more of the production and distribution (a mistake - as distributers are near-impossible to deal with without label backing).
as hermit pointed out, we weren't even discussing musicians' source of income, we were discussing revenue from sales of media, i chose to elaborate on the musician side, as i am one. never mind that ad hominem, though, just support your claims. i gave rough estimates, and i stated this. and from what hermit dug up, i was not only close to the stats i gave, i was actually being a bit generous with the stats..
My guess is that whoever originally strated spreading this misinformation has zero actual experience in the field and ahs spent too much time reading from others with the same level of experience - none. The blind leading the blind.
yet you say that you personally have had no experiance in the field, so you discredit your own arguement. is this the whole "self defeating" tactic? i think it could be classified loosely as "ad misericondum" (i think that's what the fallacy is called).
I'm not going to go into the detail for you guys, as you are still trying to figure out that the "wheel is round" so to say. I just have to wonder who would give out such poor info and then who would be sucker enough to believe it. Anyone willing to believe the paragraphs I quoted, is going into the discussion completely ill prepared and with false information. Anyone person that made the statements listed in the quoted paragraphs at an industry gathering would look quite the fool. It's my advise that you actually speak to pros aside from a "knownothing" like me. (an electronic or punk musician with no main stream appeal are NOT the people to be talking to as they are very far from the actual business end of music - and usually idealistic dreamers to boot - as in they think their product is far more valuable than it is). Letting musicians that were in the Sex Pistols, or any other non-selling band give industry tips and advise is like asking a ditch digger to explain the science of geology.
your arguement is hollow. you provide no proof or evidence, real or imagined, and you profess this yourself in the arguement. therefore, given your arguement, and using your arguement as my source of evidence, i declare your arguement moot for the same reasons you dlaimed that my arguement moot (though the difference is that i have "proof"). i also place upon your arguement the stigma that you attempted to place upon my arguement (that anyone believing it is a "sucker" and is "ill prepared...with false information" as you put it.) this is because for someone to logically accept your arguement, they have to accept that your arguement is self denounced by the proclamation that you are a "know-nothing" yourself, and is only compounded by the fact that you provide no real information, only an assertation.
Consumers have started to protest at attempts by the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) to sue individuals for downloading files from peer-to-peer (P2P) sites such as Kazaa and Grokster.
Users are furious that the RIAA has issued subpoenas to internet service providers (ISPs) to force them to identify customers who share music.
The RIAA claims that downloaders illegally share copyrighted music, costing the industry millions.
But websites detailing the music of RIAA members have been put on the internet to aid boycotts, while street protests have been planned in a number of US states, including Texas, New Mexico and Georgia.
In California, protests have been planned for various venues as anti-RIAA momentum grows.
"They are picking on the kids, hoping their parents will go crazy and scream at their children for doing something the RIAA says is illegal," claimed Wayne Rosso (pictured), president at P2P network Grokster.
"But the parents are going to ask: 'Why are you suing me because my kid downloaded a couple of files? You must be out of your mind'."
Rosso described the RIAA's actions as "insane" and predicted that the organisation could find its mission to sue individuals blowing up in its face.
He pointed out that the growing backlash in the US could prove more damaging to the industry than the cost of illegal downloads, and said the only result of legal action would be to turn more than a quarter of Americans into instant "felons".
Rosso also disputed a recent Nielsen/NetRatings survey, which purports to show that use of file sharing applications has fallen 15 per cent since the RIAA began to threaten users with legal action.
"These figures were from the week 29 June up to 6 July, which runs into Independence Day celebrations. The kids who download files are on holiday," he said.
"But if there has been a fall-off can they produce evidence that CD sales have risen? I think not."
But despite the RIAA's attacks on downloaders in the US, there is unlikely to be much effect on other countries where file sharing is also common.
According to Rosso, the successful launch of a paid-for edition of the Grokster software shows just how little impact the RIAA's legal moves will have globally.
"The software is selling like hot cakes, including in the US; but most of our downloads come from London, England," he added.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
billroh@churchofvirus.com
Guest
Re: virus: Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #24 on: 2003-07-28 12:22:04 »
I suppose I could have been more polite. There was no reason not to be.
I didn't specifically point everything out to you as thought you might actually try to discover the truth. I assumed you knew that I have a long history in music.
I never said I was not in the business - where did you ever get that idea? I would not even have mentioned the subject if I was not involved in the business, that would make me a fake, but since you are relatively new here, I suspect you would not know about my long music history. From a music schollarship at the U of A, to performing, to manufacture, to engineering with a lot of industry contact for about a decade. I lived it from when I woke up til when I hit the rack. I slept on studio floors and read every book on the subject exhaustivly. I spoke to execs and peeons alike. Don't think that just because I have left that aspect of the business for more lucritave and stable environs - now I build studios, sound systems, video systems and the like, including Radio and television stations. I also maintain weekly contacts within companies like ClearChanel and Citidel - more aspects of the same business. I have never worked for a label - that is about the only position I have not had - and would never want. Provide proof? Copies of schollarship? Copies of my record contact? Copies of my BMI membership contract? Lists and scores for hundreds of Tunes? CDs? And when I five you proof - will a "sorry, you are right" be forthcoming? Don't make me waste my time. I'm not giving you info and valuable time to help myeslf. But if you would like to pay current consulting rate of 125.00hr (I know that is inexpensive, but this is Tucson AZ after all, not LA.), I'll be glad to give you whatever you like.
Musicians do not pay for recording or production costs after they are signed in 99% of the cases. Videos are not the related to the label and, like touring, does not support the label. Distribution is the responsibility of the label. This is not to say that this is not about business - costs must be recouped before the CD is profitable and musicians get money from the CD - but that is the case in all goods. CD sales are not now - nor have they recently been - a relevant aspect of musicians income. In the 50s, an artist like, say Tennessee Ford, would make a penny or 2 for ever record sold. But because he was know by those record sales, he could perform the music and his other acts for a substantial profit. It is in the performing and airplay (airplay to include all cases where the music is heard) If you are a musician you should know this. Musicians money related the CD come from airplay, commercial spots, club play, etc.. CDs are profitable for the record comany - that is where a good percentage of their money comes from. Don't get me wrong, I do not like the labels, but they are legal entities. I don't need to go look up stats to know these things - they were learned through years of experience.
Here's a little reading for you. It's fun, witty, a bit silly, and terribly accurate - plus it bashes the industry labels pretty well. I read it, even had it signed, when it was published back in the early 90s', but it's still relevant. http://www.shadoshea.com/Books/just_4_the_record.html ( do I need to take a photocopy to prove it?)
As for what Hermit says - I filter the charlatan. So if you say your purpose was to just figure the value of CD sales, great, I honestly send all Hermitposts directly to the bin. I thought you were implying that the musicians are ripped off in the process and that is simply not the case.
And - I never claimed your argument moot - I would love to see you go forward - but it seems to me that you are starting out of the box with poor information. I don't know if you got it from having bad experiences, following the experiences of others or what. If you think otherwise, good for you, and in the end you will wonder why your solutions are so unworkable. I am saying that you need to research your foundation of knowledge and have a better historical understanding of why the divisions and pay exists as it is now. I don't need to go into any more depth with you on the subject. Like a hardcore, if I don't tell you what you want to hear, maybe you'll just follow the local witch doctor, maybe not. Either way - nothing done will effect me - audio engineering is not about to change, and production is geared only to get more expensive, the business looks lucritive to me no matter what happens now.
On an only slightly related note - what kind of musician are you? What is your forte? May I hear some? Where do your musical interests lie?
athe nonrex wrote:
>[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44] >I have to wonder why I am replying in this thread. I suppose it's >because I can easily show you where some of your misinformation is >located without wasting more than a minute or two of my time. Though I >am willing to bet this goes in one ear and out the other. > >I suppose I will just point out where you are wrong on this. Suffice it >to say that there is not a correct statment except possibly the math, >which I did not check, in relation to the following paragraphs. > > >funny, you merely said i was wrong...you never said "why" or "how" i was wrong, or misinformed...just that i was wrong and misinformed. > > >[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44] >You are wrong on who pays for studio time, production and music videos or distribution. >You are wrong about where the money goes as well - you seem to have just lumped them together in the form of \"money to the record company\". >You completely ignore the main sources of a musician's income. hint - it is not CD sales! In fact, CD sales, unless you are someone like Madonna or the Stones, play a tiny part to completely indignificant part. We all knew when signing our contracts that the money wouldn't come from CD's, and even plotted ways to take over more of the production and distribution (a mistake - as distributers are near-impossible to deal with without label backing). > > >as hermit pointed out, we weren't even discussing musicians' source of income, we were discussing revenue from sales of media, i chose to elaborate on the musician side, as i am one. never mind that ad hominem, though, just support your claims. i gave rough estimates, and i stated this. and from what hermit dug up, i was not only close to the stats i gave, i was actually being a bit generous with the stats.. > >[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44] >My guess is that whoever originally strated spreading this misinformation has zero actual experience in the field and ahs spent too much time reading from others with the same level of experience - none. The blind leading the blind. > > >yet you say that you personally have had no experiance in the field, so you discredit your own arguement. is this the whole "self defeating" tactic? i think it could be classified loosely as "ad misericondum" (i think that's what the fallacy is called). > >[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44] >I'm not going to go into the detail for you guys, as you are still trying to figure out that the \"wheel is round\" so to say. I just have to wonder who would give out such poor info and then who would be sucker enough to believe it. Anyone willing to believe the paragraphs I quoted, is going into the discussion completely ill prepared and with false information. Anyone person that made the statements listed in the quoted paragraphs at an industry gathering would look quite the fool. It's my advise that you actually speak to pros aside from a \"knownothing\" like me. (an electronic or punk musician with no main stream appeal are NOT the people to be talking to as they are very far from the actual business end of music - and usually idealistic dreamers to boot - as in they think their product is far more valuable than it is). Letting musicians that were in the Sex Pistols, or any other non-selling band give industry tips and advise is like asking a ditch digger to explain the science of geology. > > >your arguement is hollow. you provide no proof or evidence, real or imagined, and you profess this yourself in the arguement. therefore, given your arguement, and using your arguement as my source of evidence, i declare your arguement moot for the same reasons you dlaimed that my arguement moot (though the difference is that i have "proof"). i also place upon your arguement the stigma that you attempted to place upon my arguement (that anyone believing it is a "sucker" and is "ill prepared...with false information" as you put it.) this is because for someone to logically accept your arguement, they have to accept that your arguement is self denounced by the proclamation that you are a "know-nothing" yourself, and is only compounded by the fact that you provide no real information, only an assertation. > >[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44] >I typed this fast without error checking - sry in advance for typos or grammar errors. > > > >and, were it not for this last note you had...i would have been petty and corrected every little spelling error, and signed... > >- the grammar nazi strikes again! >athenonrex > >---- >This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. ><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28770> >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > >
-- Reason - Vision - Empathy Tools for a healthy mind
Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #25 on: 2003-07-28 14:41:47 »
Heh Roh you bull shitter. Isn't this the family business where you are a salesperson?
Roh’s Audio Video Appliance Supercenter Large selection of home entertainment and gourmet kitchen appliances. Specializing in custom installations, pre-wiring for new homes, multi-room music systems, complete theaters and custom kitchen appliances. Featuring Asko, Dacor, Frigidaire, Sub-Zero, U-Line, Wolf, Bosch, Marvel, Bose, Canon, Denon, Sony/ES, SharpVision, Energy, Mitsubishi. 2922 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson 795-8573 www.rohs.com
Do you have a store in a store? (Virians, note the address similarity).
Virians, notice the "professional" brands carried http://www.rohs.com/brands.htm in addition to the "commercial" brands. Phone and buy a mixer from this "professional engineer*" and he can sell you a fridge at the same time. Pehaps, as a "professional musician", he will sing a sales jingle as he cuts you a deal. Or maybe not. Personally I prefer to deal with people I can trust and any store which charges its salespeople out at $125/hour is too steep for me. Then again, some people have more money than sense.
BTW Roh, were you not the pro who was producing a CoV CD we would hear "soon"? That was a bunch of years ago. How many years does it take a "real BS pro" like you to produce a CD anyway? In Africa it would be taken from concept to retail in 6 weeks. But I guess you do it differently.
*Apropos of something, is engineering not a reserved profession in Arizona? So is your claim to be a professional engineer valid? Didn't you tell the list that you had dropped out of college unqualified? Or did you only say it in person? More than one person remembers the in person bit... So were you lying then (but why would you do that?) or now?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #27 on: 2003-07-29 13:37:05 »
[Michelle] Hermit, he's not going to see your flame anyway, so why submit the list to more name-calling?
[Hermit] One answer might be, "because he lies", but more seriously, because the ongoing sniping and nastiness is at a level where if I didn't have a sizeable investment here, I'd have done what far too many others have done and just left.
[Hermit] Consider that attempts to discuss current affairs resulted in having to close access to a board on which I and others spent several hundreds of hours writing arguments and attempting to present a perspective tending to counteract the incessent stream of propaganda delivered by the US media. These were simply "drowned out", not by pieces written to counter them, but by a plethora of plagiarised articles simply copy pasted at a rate often exceeding forty per day by one user. I haven't noticed you commenting on this. Is there something wrong with this picture?
[Hermit] Discussion of the ethics of what seems to me to be illegal activities on the part of the Israeli and American governments on the main list have lead to many here being called "racists", "fucktards", "unAmerican", "antiSemite" and "pro terrorism". Currently the national news services are not reporting that reputable organizations are accusing us and our allies of horrendous war crimes. I think that is something which should be discussed here. Unfortunately, a brief glimpse at the nineteen copy paste posts made yesterday after I had posted two drafts on the "Test Area", currently being abused by Joe Dees, will show you what the result would be if this were raised here. So I have not. And I suggest that the CoV is poorer for that. I haven't noticed you objecting to that. Is there something wrong with this picture?
[Hermit] Those attempting to discuss P2Ps ethics and practicality have been accused by Bill Roh of "stealing", told they don't know what they are talking about (although as demonstrated, the boot is on the other fool) and told that they should be classified as felons. Does this encourage discussion or the submission of thought out argument? Had we not allowed Bill Roh (who let's not forget attempted to "out me" after committing not to), use the CoV as a platform to attempt to belittle me, I would not have replied as I did. And you wouldn't have written your letter. But we did, and he did, and I did and you did. In that order. Is there something wrong with this picture?
[Hermit] On another thread, attempting to discuss the possibility that neither jobs nor money may be very significant in a post-singularity world, Joe Dees used the opportunity to go off on an utterly unfounded 1950s McCartyite anti-socialist/communist rant (and getting his facts wrong) while ignoring sound arguments and indeed the very issues raised. A rant to which I wrote a researched reply - but didn't share it - for fear of exaccerbating the situation or getting into another interminable deluge which I don't have the time or the inclination to address. How many other Virians are doing the same. Or just leaving? Of course, rants take no time at all - and calling people names is even easier. So our willingness to allow Joe Dees to behave as does suppresses serious contributions, chases off those we might like to see as fellow members of our church and encourages the only kind of people who might enjoy this kind of behaviour to join in using our forums as a pissing target. I don't recall you objecting to this. Is there something wrong with this picture?
[Hermit] Indeed, I don't recall seeing your objections to any of the above. Given the history of last two years it seems that some on the list (principally Joe Dees and Bill Roh) believe that we should not bar people using name calling, flooding and topic spamming to suppress discussion. And a huge majority of Virians have remained silent - even when other long time members (David Lucifer, Dr Sebby, Jake, Zloduska, me and many more) have asked for support to take action. So far, no action has been taken and (principally) two users, Joe Dees and Bill Roh, have resulted in preventing some 1600 others from holding discussions on these topics - and many other Virians, having seen what happens to posters who raise the ire of the "Moral Majority" don't post their ideas, comments or submissions. Indeed it has become the case that people keep quiet even when they object or are revolted by things said here - for fear of stirring a shitstorm aimed at themselves. Is there something wrong with this picture?
[Hermit] I think that all the above makes a statement. I think that it says that the CoV has changed at a very fundamental level, and not, I think, for the better. The question for those who are revolted by this (which includes me), is what do you want to do about this? I know that I am not going to keep quiet. I think that I have sufficient credibility and have demonstrated sufficient goodwill to respond in kind in the hope that this causes change even though I am not sure whether it will. To highlight the situation as I see it, in the hope of eventual change , I am now using (abusing) the list as the list itself has indicated it prefers to be used - or abused, when it seems needed. While we allow this behavior - and we allow it through our silence as well as by defending the perpetuators of such behaviour, I will reciprocate in the fashion that the list has indicated it prefers. In otherwords, when I call Joe Dees a "fuckwit" and would call Bill Roh a "lying cunt" (only cunts are nice), I am reciprocating because the CoV is no longer a place where a person can discuss an issue without being called names or flooded. And I think there is something very much wrong with this picture.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:The law and what might have been
« Reply #28 on: 2003-07-29 20:44:13 »
there's something wrong with your picture? did you try looking at it with the light on? if so, did you try looking at it from a different angle? sometimes that helps.
or, if you're looking at it black and white...are you looking at the black, or the white?
it's really all on how you look at it. see, i don't thing that there is something wrong with the picture, but rather there is something wrong with your picture. if the meaning is of this metaphore is lost on you, perhaps it always will be.
> > there's something wrong with your picture? did you try looking at it > with the light on? if so, did you try looking at it from a different > angle? sometimes that helps. > > or, if you're looking at it black and white...are you looking at the > black, or the white? > > it's really all on how you look at it. see, i don't thing that there > is something wrong with the picture, but rather there is something > wrong with your picture. if the meaning is of this metaphore is lost > on you, perhaps it always will be. > > -with the love of a child, > athenonrex > Or, as the New Age Ramtha-channeler J. Z. Knight said; "it may not be true in your reality, but it's true in mine." Of course, she was a total charlatan who was subsequently revealed as such, just like Lynn Andrews, the writer of the series "(fill in the blank) Woman". Although there may be multiple incomplete perceptions of it, there is a single reality that is common to them, and thus, these multiple perceptions of that single reality, even though each may contain unique elements, cannot contradict each other. Oh yes; and in this single reality, 'semaphore' ends in an 'e'; 'metaphor; does not. > ---- > This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on > Church of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=28770> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Author
Logged
