Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Updated Research Showing, Yet Again, That Weaker Copyright Has Benefited Culture And Society

from the good-news dept

Almost exactly a year ago, we wrote about a draft version of a paper from Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard and Koleman Strumpf of the University of Kansas concerning the impact of weaker copyright enforcement on society. It appears that they've now updated that paper and, as a whole bunch of you have been submitting, it's finally getting some press attention. The full paper is embedded below, and is quite similar to the draft we discussed last year, but since so many people seem unfamiliar with it, we thought it was worth reposting the whole thing, and some key points from it:
The paper looks at the overall market, rather than just the narrow market for direct sales of content, and finds, as we've been pointing out for years, that the increased ability to make, share, promote and distribute content hasn't hurt the content market at all. In fact, the opposite has happened:
Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. The publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period. Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than 30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the new technology.

... While file sharing disrupted some traditional business models in the creative industries, foremost in music, in our reading of the evidence there is little to suggest that the new technology has discouraged artistic production. Weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society.
One of the key points that the paper makes is that many people have difficulty (especially beforehand) in recognizing whether certain products are substitutes or complements. If products substitute for others (i.e., downloads take away from sales), then a market can be harmed. However, if the products are actually complements (i.e., more content boosts other parts of the market), then a market can actually be helped. The detailed research that Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf go through clearly shows (pretty unequivocally) that file sharing is a complementary good that has massively boosted many different ancillary markets, and created a fantastic consumer surplus without actually decreasing output. In fact, quite to the contrary, as noted above, creative output has risen at a dramatic pace. And, when you actually look at the overall market, you see that the actual spend on these markets is increasing, not decreasing:
The role of complements makes it necessary to adopt a broad view of markets when considering the impact of file sharing on the creative industries. Unfortunately, the popular press -- and a good number of policy experts -- often evaluate file sharing looking at a single product market. Analyzing trends in CD sales, for example, they conclude that piracy has wrecked havoc on the music business. This view confuses value creation and value capture. Record companies may find it more difficult to profitably sell CDs, but the broader industry is in a far better position. In fact, it is easy to make an argument that the business has grown considerably. Figure 7 shows spending on CDs, concerts and iPods. The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows the industry has grown by 5% over this period. If we also consider the sale of iPods as a revenue stream, the industry is now 66% larger than in 1997.
The report also takes on the policy questions, and notes (as we have so many times) that too much of the policy debate is on how to help a particular industry, which is not what copyright is intended to do at all:
Copyright exists to encourage innovation and the creation of new works; in other words to promote social welfare. The question to ask is thus whether the new technology has undermined the incentives to create, market, and distribute entertainment. Sales displacement is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for harm to occur. We also need to know whether income from complementary products offset the decline in income from copyrighted works. And even if income fell, welfare may not suffer if artists do not respond to weaker monetary incentives.
From there, the report notes evidence that the income from complementary products has, in fact, increased while at the same time pointing out that artistic output is clearly not suffering. While the report notes that further study on these issues is definitely required, it's amazing that so few people are talking about this. I've brought it up to both the USTR and the IP Enforcement Coordinator, and neither seems inclined to care. Both seem wholly focused on responding to the claims of industry lobbyists that they are being harmed. But industry players failing to react is not the same thing as actual societal harm, and -- as we have pointed out repeatedly -- the entire point of copyright law is supposed to be about benefiting society as a whole.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 11:45am

    They missed some stuff ....

    They should be taking more into account than the recording industry, the TV studios, and movie industry. It is the "entertainment" industry. To see this as a whole you need take into account what people do with their time, over time.

    iPod arent the only mp3 players. I know they added that to prove a point. Every cell phone has a built in mp3 player now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 11:48am

    "Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. The publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period. Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than 30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the new technology. " - the numbers look way too low to be reflecting reality. these days, anyone can be a musician, anyone can publish a book (vanity presses anyone?), and anyone with a camera is a movie maker. the increases dont even seem to reflect the availability of new tools and new distribution, let alone any great benefit from file sharing.

    further, it is clear that revenues are not in line with the increases in product created, which means the average take per product is lower. it pretty much matches up with the concept of water level. if you make the pool twice the size, the water only comes up half way. there were almost double the number of movie releases last year, but without the boost from 3d movies, it is likely that income would actually have dropped overall. it means that the average income per released film is way down.

    short term benefits to society of wider availablity may appear good, but once the financial motivations are taken away from the producers of higher end / higher cost content, they will just stop producing at those levels. the results may end up being more poor quality content, and a population trained not to pay for any of it. a study that actually looked at the longer term implications of this cycle might be much more useful and revealing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    wait around a couple of decades

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    tom, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:03pm

    'the results may end up being more poor quality content, and a population trained not to pay for any of it'

    Quality may dip for a bit perhaps, but then it will pick up again as people get round the financial limitations. Instead of not very good blockbusters based on expensive effects we'll get films that rely more on plot and script.

    Art has already gone this way. With so many now able to have the time to paint and can afford the paints there are many more painters than a few hundred years ago. Its entirely up to the individual whether its good or not.

    Music is in the process of going this way ( i should know - in the 80s and 90s recording was hopelessly expensive, and no one heard it, now i can do it at home for free and i have gigbytes of free downloads a month and even make $50 a year from itunes).

    Film is going this way too. Great.

    Its free! double great.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:07pm

    Re:

    the results may end up being more poor quality content, and a population trained not to pay for any of it.

    Thank goodness artistic work is subjective and what is the public now, a fucking dog?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:11pm

    Re:

    Did you really just hinge an entire argument on "it looks wrong"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re:

    wow, only 3 posts. mike will cut your paycheck off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:29pm

    Re:

    further, it is clear that revenues are not in line with the increases in product created, which means the average take per product is lower.


    The curve does seem to indicate that the middle-man without a plan is going extinct, yes.

    Must suck for them to have had a free ride on a massive bubble for so long and then have it burst. The unskilled labor market is a bitch right now too...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:30pm

    " If we also consider the sale of iPods as a revenue stream, the industry is now 66% larger than in 1997. " - i also have to question this logic. if you add in the sales of the cars and buses that were used to get to the apple stores to buy the ipods, the music industry is flourishing! it is incredibly misleading to combine the players with the content. otherwise, they would have to go back and recalculate the music industry based on all the walkmans, stereos, car stereos, and all sorts of other players that have been sold over the years.

    i truly think that the writers of this study are trying very hard to make the data fit the conclusion they started out looking for, which is a terrible way to do 'research'. it almost makes techdirt look balanced, which is a true reach.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    these days, anyone can be a musician, anyone can publish a book (vanity presses anyone?), and anyone with a camera is a movie maker.

    These numbers are from within the industries. For example, the amount of new music albums has doubled as reported by Nielsen SoundScan. In other words, albums have to be barcoded and sold in stores.

    it means that the average income per released film is way down.

    Box office income has also been climbing, so that may not be true. But even if it is true, it's irrelevant. If people create more, then copyright is serving its purpose, even if people make less money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're a moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:50pm

    Re:

    "further, it is clear that revenues are not in line with the increases in product created, which means the average take per product is lower."

    Thats just basic economics, the market is swamped with content and the price goes down. With newer and better software for music and video creation the amount of quality content will go up. With the increase in the content available the consumer, price will be driven towards zero. This will fit nicely under a bell curve with the top 5% being what people will pay for.

    "short term benefits to society of wider availablity may appear good, but once the financial motivations are taken away from the producers of higher end / higher cost content, they will just stop producing at those levels."

    Actually you are wrong. Technology will be the solution to this. Virtual sets, CGI done on GPU machines, sound and video editting software, online resources like Google SketchUp, 1080P and 3D cameras for a few hundred dollars, project software, and collaboration tools will make large scale production cost drop. In five to ten years the processing power to do Avatar will be available on a mid to high end workstation.

    "a study that actually looked at the longer term implications of this cycle might be much more useful and revealing."

    Disruptive technologies have always interested me. I have been forecasting the trends of the internet as a disruptive technology for a while now. It doesnt bode well for the newspapers, record labels, and studios. They collapse in different countries at different rates. The collection societies fail 2-3 years later. Infringement plays a part. The true cause of the failure is competition from both inside and outside the industries.

    We started out with the record labels having a monopoly, add to that 2,000,000 plus bands on facebook and myspace. Its called competition.

    We started out with 4 - 5 TV stations in any market ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and a local or two. We now have cable systems with over 200 stations. There are only so many advertising dollars to go around. Again its called competition.

    The external competition also eats into the record labels, and studios profits. Gaming, e-mail, texting, farmville, blogging, surfing the web, chatting online, etc all add to the competition for our "limited" time and money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Steve-O, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 12:52pm

    Re:

    The point of including iPods is that they are complementary goods. An iPod is mainly for listening to music or watching video. Therefore it complements the entertainment industry and is a valid item to include. Yes, the RIAA doesn't likely see much money from iPod sales (correct me if wrong), but we're not focusing on single products (recorded music/video/content), but entire industries (music/video/content creation).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Learn, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    Re: 'the results may end up being more poor quality content, and a population trained not to pay for any of it'

    Meet the competition.

    http://www.jamendo.com/en/search/all/brad%20sucks

    Maybe you learn something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re:

    That's his M.O. - if he can't attack the core of the argument (which he rarely does), then misrepresent it. If he can't do that, attack the way it's written or bring up an irrelevant misrepresentation he wrote on a previous post (which was debunked thoroughly by 20 people, but he never mentions that part). Sometimes he's reduced to attacking a typo (which is later corrected).

    If he can do none of that, he'll type a few paragraphs along the lines of "I know better than everybody else here" and then try to pretend that everyone disagreeing with him is a paid employee... (glances at the moron's reply to you)... yep.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Re:

    "...otherwise, they would have to go back and recalculate the music industry based on all the walkmans, stereos, car stereos, and all sorts of other players that have been sold over the years."

    It's becoming very obvious that you have yet to read all 46 pages. Before I comment further, I'll read the pages and come to my own conclusions as I would highly suggest you do the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Re:

    e e trollings writes: short term benefits to society of wider availablity may appear good, but once the financial motivations are taken away from the producers of higher end / higher cost content, they will just stop producing at those levels. the results may end up being more poor quality content

    Wait, isn't that called a "free market" in other industries? I'm not trying to be snarky here, despite what it sounds like at first. A variety of wristwatch makers exist: some go for high end/high cost (Rolex). Others go for low-end, low cost, very high volume, don't even know if these typically have a brand name. Some market for novelty (Swatch, Victorinex). If the high-end manufacturers guess wrong, they get punished in the marketplace. Same for the low end and the novelty segment.

    Are you really arguing for controls on the wristwatch market so that Rolex can stay in business? Or maybe for controls on what other consumer electronic tchotchkes can have clocks on them so that Casio can make middle-market watches? Let the Market Decide, because I already have. I don't wear a wristwatch, I use the higher accuracy time of my computer (NTP) or my cellphone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:21pm

    Re:

    "without the boost from 3d movies, it is likely that income would actually have dropped overall"

    Amusingly, you just torpedoed your whole argument right there. Let's see if you can work out why.

    Also, it's worth noting that of the top 20 films at the US box office last year (according to Box Office Mojo, anyway), only 4 of them were in 3D and only 2 of those were in the top 5. So, even if you're not destroying your own arguments while making them, it's hardly likely that 3D was the only thing causing increased profits. In fact, even if you remove Avatar entirely from last year's domestic totals, they're still slightly higher than 2008.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:22pm

    Re: They missed some stuff ....

    But mp3 players are primarily mp3 players, while cell phones which can play mp3 are primarily cell phones.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:24pm

    Music industry sales trends

    The chart only goes to 2007 and although income went up significantly from 2003, it actually declined from 2006-2007. That's kind of interesting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:30pm

    Re:

    further, it is clear that revenues are not in line with the increases in product created, which means the average take per product is lower.

    Which is fine because the cost of production is much lower too - so profit (as a percentage) is still healthy.


    but once the financial motivations are taken away from the producers of higher end / higher cost content, they will just stop producing at those levels.

    If that was true then surely they would already have stopped. You seem to think they are really stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:33pm

    People will keep making music

    As I have said, with the new music creation technologies coming out, I think lots of people will make music. Music is the sort of thing people do even when there's no money in it, so I think traditional economics don't really apply. Everyone will get out their iPhones/iPads or the equivalent, and use the handy, dandy free applications and make music.

    Just as Autotune significantly changed the recording process, now the new apps are going profoundly change music creation as well. Press some buttons or drag your finger and you'll have your own songs. There are new applications coming out weekly. It's not getting the attention of some of the other aspects of the music business, but I think it is actually moving at a much faster rate than anything we have seen before.

    That's what I expect to be the new music revolution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:43pm

    Re: Re:

    "In five to ten years the processing power to do Avatar will be available on a mid to high end workstation."

    It's worth noting that this is already happening. A lot of processing for current films is already done on Linux-powered PC clusters. The stumbling point is often simply the software being used, which is extremely expensive.

    Enter Blender. A completely free piece of software that's already been used to create a couple of excellent short animated movies (Elephant's Dream and Big Buck Bunny), a game (Yo Frankie!) and Plumíferos - an Argentinian feature length animation that was produced on Linux and released *theatrically* in Argentina this year.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that the movies will be any good, but you don't need to be Disney or Dreamworks to create a CGI movie. It will take time to create a reasonably high quality product, and not every director is Brad Bird, but there's promise.

    The same things are happening in the gaming (highly successful indie games such as Braid) and movie (Paranormal Activity - the Asylum-lensed rip-off "mockbuster" Paranormal Entity actually cost more!) industries. The only reason why a 100% independent production hasn't hit massively big is because the majors own most of the distribution and promotion channels. This is also changing...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:46pm

    So article really says and @20

    the public domain which id use cause its free harms sales cause id not then pay for something even though i cant afford to pay....

    @20
    they are stupid
    so linux vs windows
    WHICH is more secure
    WHICH is free
    WHICH can you modify
    AND i will add if not for copyrights and patents and such
    you'd prolly not need the gpl either or any copyright license.

    pioneer one did quite well and as people get used to this type of workings ,like ya know its a recession eh?
    TIME for actors and muscians to realize if they want to do there craft they are gonn ahave to struggle like the rest of us

    ( THANK YOU FOR the electricity hike to my food store of 8% so they passed 12.5(YES i know it should have been only 8% increase not 12.5 but ask them) to me for food , next month its 8% more on my net costs.

    the revolution is coming....
    remember remember the 5th of november

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 1:53pm

    @9 dont worry be happy

    iPod sales will soon be thing of the past out of what 350 million Americans they sold like 750,000 ipads ffs.
    AND per capita its selling even worse in Canada.
    WHILE that will sustain them for a while all the rest of us will move on and upward and save money and thus bridge a gap of wealth, but not paying the copyright tax.

    THATS WHAT 50 year or more anything is A FRAKING TAX.
    Did i as factory worker and thus artist producing steel doors and frames in a monopoly company get 50 year revenue per door i made?

    NOPE
    WHY THE FUCK SHOULD AN ACTOR or MUSICIAN GET ANYTHING PAST POINT OF SALE.
    want to impress me? lower the pop n popcorn prices to 3$ make the pop real and make the cost of a theater movie no more then 3$ and QUIT SUING PEOPLE.
    NEGATIVE THEY ALL ARE
    instead of thinking positive about ways to make money they go they other way and how to prevent any form of revenue loss.
    IMMORALLY doing that btw. bribing , coercing using bribed and corrupted HOLLYWOOD USA govt, to push around my nation and others.

    I THINK we should negate all cdr levies and negate all copyright, or each time these orgs whine we immediately lower all the term rates 5 years. IN a week it will be ZERO.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 2:06pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I've been looking at the low end movie making tools. The sort of thing anyone can do.

    At the very low end is this:
    http://www.xtranormal.com

    A bit more sophisticated is this.
    http://www.moviestorm.co.uk/

    Before long the tools will be both more technically advanced and more user friendly.

    I've also been compiling extremely easy-to-use music tools. There are, of course, many that are more complex, but I wanted to find stuff that people could use within minutes.
    Music Creation for the Untalented, the Untrained, the Lazy, and Those with Some Time to Kill

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    zcat (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 2:37pm

    Can we stop referring to "weaker copyright" and instead refer to "stronger content-user rights" ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 2:45pm

    Some more music-related economic news

    Since we have been talking about growth of the music industry, it might be worth a look at musical instruments and gear.

    NAMM music gear trade show is 'hurting' this year | The Tennessean "Annual sales of guitars, pianos, sheet music and other products from picks to drum kits totaled $5.8 billion in 2009, off about 20 percent from a year earlier."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Dementia (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Re: They missed some stuff ....

    I, at the least, disagree. I do not own an mp3 player, yet I often utilize the one built in to my phone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 6:53pm

    Re: Anonymous Blowhard

    short term benefits to society of wider availablity may appear good, but once the financial motivations are taken away from the producers of higher end / higher cost content, they will just stop producing at those levels.

    Look around. The photocopier has been around about half a century. Did the “piracy” that that made possible put an end to the book industry? If anything, it had the opposite effect.

    That’s the point of this research paper and a whole lot others: newer copying and distribution technologies enhance the businesses of the content creators. The only businesses they destroy are those of the old distribution companies—the ones that like to have the content creators assign all copyrights to them, purely for their own good, of course.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "if he can't attack the core of the argument (which he rarely does), then misrepresent it." - paul, you are just wrong. my entire point is that the core of the argument is myopic, not looking at the implications in the long term as to what will happen. will the lack of income on average cause lower quality films to be made? will there be less middle ground movies, on only blockbusters and cheaper indy films? will music turn into a have and have not, as they continue to recycle the same stars forever, rather than taking risks on new ones?

    the time frame examined isnt long enough to see what the change of financial wind does for these industries as a whole. it is, like many things on techdirt, too close to the action to see what is happening. it is a great report on a tree, but the reality is a forest.

    "e'll type a few paragraphs along the lines of "I know better than everybody else here" and then try to pretend that everyone disagreeing with him is a paid employee" - when the same person comes into every thread and attempts to shout me down, i have to assume he is on the payroll. mike has tried every other method (including calling me names, a liar, an idiot, and uneducated). this latest onslaught looks exactly like more of the same, aimed not to address any points i bring up, but rather to shout them down. that is the techdirt way!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:09pm

    Re: Some more music-related economic news

    when people arent making money making music, they dont buy the tools. quite simple, it has gone from a business to aspire to into a wasteland in a very short period of time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    robin, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Enter Blender"


    Excellent reference, I'm very excited about the upcoming changes to the newest version. Seriously turning it into a world-class program. for free!!

    everyone mentions avatar as the be-all-and-end-all of technological sophistication.

    "In five to ten years the processing power to do Avatar will be available on a mid to high end workstation."


    note for reference's sake that a $1,000 bit of software was responsible for the entire virtual art department of this film throughout its production:

    news:

    http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2010/03/08/daily34.html

    product:

    http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/index.php?

    all of which i mention in support of the discussion around the social betterment aims of copyright law and how the law should evolve to meet the capabilities of the tools WE use, not the other way around.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Tek'a R (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Demonstrating an interesting persecution complex there.

    Wouldn't you think that mike and the entire techdirt gang could do better then "the same person comes into every thread and attempts to shout me down"? Why not simply delete every post you make, or edit them to make everything agree with whatever they say?

    Instead you fear that there are shadowy figures lurking throughout the site, all tied together in some mysterious payroll scheme that pays every time one of your ridiculous "points" is disagreed with.

    Because the other option is realizing that the common denominator in all of your failed arguments is.. wait for it.. you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Your paranoia continues to be even more amusing than your inability to read, inability to make arguments that are not full of logical fallacies, and hypocritical pretending to not be TAM under the guise of anonymity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:44pm

    Re: Re: Some more music-related economic news

    I blame Guitar Hero and Rock Band.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:46pm

    Re: Re: Some more music-related economic news

    Psychic TAM makes an absolute declaration yet again.

    Shocking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 7:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    To lowercase tam:

    http://despair.com/dysfunction.html

    That said, if Mike's paying me, I'd like to know where it is. /sarc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 9:22pm

    Music Creation for the Untalented, the Untrained, the Lazy, and Those with Some Time to Kill

    "Untalented, the Untrained, the Lazy, and Those with TOO MUCH Time to Kill" describes techdirt posters perfectly.

    [ except of course me & you , SL . :) ]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 9:29pm

    Re: People will keep making music

    ME :the only important post -- by SL here ---in this otherwise boring thread ,

    on a non-issue,,

    that Mike invented,,

    because Mike is,,

    Untalented, the Untrained, the Lazy,
    and AMONG Those
    with "TOO MUCH
    Time to Kill"-- ie. techdirt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 21st, 2010 @ 9:34pm

    Re: Can we stop referring to "weaker copyright" and instead refer to "stronger content-user rights" ?

    either way it is un-realistic and out of touch terminology .
    --------------------------------------------
    Copyright now , copyrights stronger ,, copyright 4ever.
    ( it is in the U.S, Constitution. Look it up)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Curt Sampson, Jun 21st, 2010 @ 10:30pm

    Only Some Things are Cheaper

    Let me first say that my personal point of view is that copyright laws are currently too strong, and that the main purpose of strengthening them over the last decade or two does indeed appear to have been to support existing monopolies more than anything else.

    However, the study doesn't strike me as sufficiently well dealing with the effect of cheaper content creation (in some cases) and distribution (in almost all cases) on how much content is now available. There's no real study there of how much content was created but went undistributed a couple of decades ago in areas such as fan fiction, for example.

    For those who think content creation is getting cheaper: in certain areas this is true. However, in other areas it's not changing in any dramatic way, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sure, everybody's got a cheap hard disk recording system these days, but an AKG 414 or Neumann U87 microphone is no cheaper now than it was twenty years ago, nor is the cost of building the nice room in which you want to use them. We can certainly edit a film cheaply enough, but building the sets on which to shoot the film we're going to edit isn't really any cheaper.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 6:02am

    Re: Only Some Things are Cheaper

    Write films that dont need expensive sets.
    I would guess that there are more successful songs that did not use AKG 414 or Neumann U87 microphones than did. We use what we can and it makes for different original sounds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hey Suzanne

    "Music Creation for the Untalented, the Untrained, the Lazy, and Those with Some Time to Kill"

    We are on the same page on this. Might I suggest, mix in collaboration, contests, open standards, social networking, and turn it into a game and you have a killer app. The farmville of music ;) Any suggestions on a name for this app?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 7:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "It's worth noting that this is already happening. A lot of processing for current films is already done on Linux-powered PC clusters."

    I was pointing out that Avatar style moves will be possible in short order with cheap hardware. No need for 2 million dollars worth of hardware.

    "The same things are happening in the gaming"

    The same things are happeing in all the media industries. Its just a matter of pulling all the tools together and putting together education and training for the tools. Making the tools user friendly and easy to use would go a long way towards accelerating this trend.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Only Some Things are Cheaper

    "Write films that dont need expensive sets."

    The Sanctuary series uses Virtual Sets. Virtual sets are already being used on TV and movies. They are cheap to do. Find a wall paint it green or blue, green is better less haze around the non virtual stuff (actors and props) in the fore ground. If you get a high end digital camera and dump the raw image files you cant tell real from virtual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 8:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The best example of what happens when the tools become inexpensive, easy-to-use, and available is photography.

    Point-and-click cameras, then digital cameras, and now phone cameras have made it a very accessible. Now you have Flickr linked up with Getty and basically everyone can do photography that is commercially available.

    In music, the technology is and will fill in to cover what was traditionally accomplished through years of training. And quite honestly, what passes for popular music today in many cases can be duplicated quite easily. The home grown musicians won't necessarily have the looks of the heavily promoted pop stars, and maybe live they don't have the star power, but in terms of turning out certain genres of music, the technology can do it for them. And if it is easy enough for them, they will do it.

    I've been looking for tools that I would use myself. I've done those little flash videos where you upload some photos of yourself and you have become a star in a little predone video you can forward. It takes about a minute and it's fun. So I have been looking for other tools that allow for more customization but are still easy. People have been doing some clever stuff with Xtranormal which really is as typing in text and making a few selections in terms of characters, backgrounds, and movements.

    Then I went looking for tools that allow you to create 3d animation and there are some. Now I know I can animated films with tools I can afford and use.

    There are enough pieces of stuff floating around right now that if you have a story in mind, you can make a movie sitting at your computer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We are on the same page on this. Might I suggest, mix in collaboration, contests, open standards, social networking, and turn it into a game and you have a killer app. The farmville of music ;) Any suggestions on a name for this app?

    Actually we should talk (I'll get back to you via email). I've had one idea floating around and have been doing the research, but haven't done a lot more than that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re: Re: TAM

    > If he can do none of that,

    Don't forget my favorite: "There's more to this story than we're being told."

    Whenever he can't defend what's actually in the story, he pretends there's mysterious facts that only he knows about that are being withheld.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 8:53am

    Re: Re: Can we stop referring to "weaker copyright" and instead refer to "stronger content-user rights" ?

    How very apt that this seems quite close to George Wallace's speech.

    (Look it up)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I was pointing out that Avatar style moves will be possible in short order with cheap hardware. No need for 2 million dollars worth of hardware."

    Indeed, but which is going to come first? A cheap single unit or a cheap cluster? With enough processing power, 20 or 30 $2000 PC rigs could do it quite adequately before too long and $40-60,000 is hardly extortionate for a potentially profit-making enterprise.

    Other than that, I agree.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "will the lack of income on average cause lower quality films to be made?"

    There's a very good argument that the lower quality has been happening since at least the early 90s, if not the late 70s or before. As for the disappearance of the middle of the budget range, well what is that? A movie that costs less than $50 million might be considered low by some standard, moderate by some yet 3 of last year's top 10 movies cost that or less. $100-150 million? That covers 6 of them.

    Meanwhile, look away from the top 10. There are many, highly profitable low-to-medium budget films while movies intended as "blockbusters" often fall tens or hundreds of dollars short. Are you really saying that our culture will be poorer if the budget for Transformers 3 was poured into 3 or 4 smaller budget movies (or hell, a scriptwriter)?

    "as they continue to recycle the same stars forever, rather than taking risks on new ones"

    The key word being *continue*. What you're suggesting there is nothing new.

    "the time frame examined isnt long enough to see what the change of financial wind does for these industries as a whole. "

    Indeed, and I'm sure that the information will be re-examined when more data is available. Does that really mean that Mike cannot state his opinion on the data available now?

    "when the same person comes into every thread and attempts to shout me down, i have to assume he is on the payroll"

    Really? Why? I mean, you're clearly trolling (otherwise you'd at least agree with Mike on *some* issues or concede some common ground) and some people tire of it. Many people feel the need to answer to even blatant trolls, lest somebody actually decides that the fake and misleading points he raises have merit. It's annoying and the resulting flames soon derail threads, but some people just can't let blatant falsehoods stand.

    Maybe instead of "being on the payroll", he's just tired of your crap?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The best example of what happens when the tools become inexpensive, easy-to-use, and available is photography."

    It also shows what happens when a disruptive technology comes along. Think the cameras themselves. With the advent of digital cameras Polaroid, small disposable cameras, and most 35 mm cameras disappered.

    "And quite honestly, what passes for popular music today in many cases can be duplicated quite easily."

    but what fun is music with out the drama of britney, or that miley person. Where will the tabloids be with out the stories of drugged out musicians shaving their heads ... oh wait, I forgot, there wont be any tabloids they will be out of business .... never mind this section ;)

    "Then I went looking for tools that allow you to create 3d animation and there are some. Now I know I can animated films with tools I can afford and use."

    Blender (wikipedia link) is great for 3d modeling. It looks really great on the new samsung 46 inch LED at 1920x1200. Blender is free and can be downloaded here.

    "There are enough pieces of stuff floating around right now that if you have a story in mind, you can make a movie sitting at your computer."

    mix that with a suit that tracks body motion and stores it and it becomes really easy to do any sort of movie as CGI.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I look forward to hearing from you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It also shows what happens when a disruptive technology comes along. Think the cameras themselves. With the advent of digital cameras Polaroid, small disposable cameras, and most 35 mm cameras disappered.

    It's really exciting on the one hand. On the other, it is going to play havoc with all the creatives who are still counting on having their "tribes of fans" to support them.

    Being a fan is fundamentally passive. Sure, you can involvement by supporting your idols and sharing what your idols do with your friends, but the artist/fan relationship implies that there is a hierarchy. I know that some people have more talent than others. But technology can reduce some of those differences significantly, as has been the case with photography. When you get smart, inexpensive machines which have been programmed to do what people once needed years to figure out, then you have opened up the creative process to far more people.

    Of course, as a result, so many more people are being creative that the price paid for much creativity goes down. That's the way it goes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Have you been reading my back postings here on techdirt? Or maybe just reading past mikes hyping of subjects. What you are saying sounds eerily familiar.

    "It's really exciting on the one hand."

    Its going to be exciting for the people on the cutting edge that are forging forward into the wonderful new world of media creation and distribution. One that is going to become more interactive and more collaborative. The trends in media consuption are towards more interaction with others, and computer programs. The best solution seems to be a "what do you think of this? do you think you can make it better?" approach between people.

    For the legacy players that cant adapt and are being held back by their trade organizations, ASCAP, RIAA, MPAA, etc it is going to be a horrific experience full of fear, doubt, and rationalization. A huge problems at this junction is the fact that the goals of the trade organizations, and the goals of the people and corporations they represent are different. The trade organizations have a vested interest in things not changing. This is dragging down the individual and corporate members. Its easy to see once it is pointed out to you.

    "Being a fan is fundamentally passive."

    People are being retrained via technology to be less passive and more interactive. This is leading to more and more people wanting to do "stuff" with content.

    If you cant do things like experiment with the artists music via, remixing, sampling, add it to your videos without fear of lawsuit, etc you are going to have a problem as things become more interactive. This is why fair use and a healthy public domain are so important moving forward. The companies that insist on absolute control of all their "Intellectual property" will surely be ignored and vanish.

    "Of course, as a result, so many more people are being creative that the price paid for much creativity goes down. That's the way it goes."

    The mike did a great post on the guy that does the cartoon dilbert. Scott Adams thinks all contents value is going to go to zero due to competition. He has the same basic view I do on the subject.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    For the legacy players that cant adapt and are being held back by their trade organizations, ASCAP, RIAA, MPAA, etc it is going to be a horrific experience full of fear, doubt, and rationalization.

    I don't really concern myself with that. The labels are shrinking. Many of the people at the labels are gone, so there aren't many people to lose jobs to begin with. Most new artists are giving their stuff away already.

    I actually don't think we'll see much sampling in the future. It won't be necessary. It's been an interesting interim technology, but I think once technology becomes sophisticated enough to create whatever sounds you can think of, you can create new material without messing with samples.

    Mashups can make an artistic statement, but a lot of them don't really. I think fair use should apply, but again, once the technology is there, I think people will get more of a kick doing their own stuff.

    As for collaboration, yes, I'm all for it. Here's what I recently wrote:

    Collaborating on "Creative Things"

    And a few thoughts on participatory art.

    1. Participatory Art Is Revolutionary
    2. Audience Participation in Music
    3. The People Formerly Known as Fans

    I never get the opportunity to explore these concepts in Techdirt, so I've got to point you to what I have written to explain where I am coming from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 5:10pm

    "In many creative industries, monetary incentive plays a reduced role in motivating authors to remain creative"

    I could tell people that. You can't split up your time with lawsuit after lawsuit while you're trying to write your next book. Then there's the fanfiction of the other creators who like your world. Oh, and don't forget the "pirates" that want to see a preview. Let's see, movie deals, music deals, find a director...

    Yeah, how are you supposed to be creative during all of this gobbledegook?

    The rest of the article is very accurate. Sales of music on CDs decreased but the demand for an artist to perform soared. On top of that, you have mp3 players that saw a boost as the money for CDs was used elsewhere.

    It's still funny that the industry is decreeing that we NEED more copyrights. People can experiment with more music, more is being made, and the cost for superstar status (as the article put it) is far less than it used to be. All in all, we are more well off.

    Now if only we could get the ones to say that copyright needs to be stronger to see the error in that line of reasoning, we will be good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 5:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "my entire point is that the core of the argument is myopic, not looking at the implications in the long term as to what will happen. will the lack of income on average cause lower quality films to be made?

    ...

    the[sic] time frame examined isnt long enough to see what the change of financial wind does for these industries as a whole. "

    10 years isn't enough data?

    And for the article to correctly assess that demand for mp3 players (which people can't make en mass) and concerts (exclusive events) aren't in higher demand because mp3s (intangible good) has lowered in price?

    "that is the techdirt way!"

    I may be new to the site, but I have to question your logic. What people like or don't like are subjective. Given the economics involved, consumers have more choices even though one industry is affected.

    "short term benefits to society of wider availablity may appear good, but once the financial motivations are taken away from the producers of higher end / higher cost content, they will just stop producing at those levels. the results may end up being more poor quality content, and a population trained not to pay for any of it. a study that actually looked at the longer term implications of this cycle might be much more useful and revealing."

    Odd... Sony still produces for 3D content and last I checked Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs along with Avatar did quite well. In the article, it was less about individual supply and more about the aggregate, namely the number of DVDs and albums produced. As it stands, even within the article it dismissed the notion that people are motivated by monetary gains, regarding music. With DVDs, I may not be 100% but it's all about the star power. Why do we go out to Iron Man 2? We want to see the suit on the big screen. As it stands, the industry continues to make money from DVDs, it just has to put them out sooner rather than continue to run under the auspices of monopolistic competition

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 5:53pm

    Re: 'the results may end up being more poor quality content, and a population trained not to pay for any of it'

    Two examples that back up your claims: the movie Primer, and the web series The Guild. Both are better than 90% of what's in theaters or on TV (respectively).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 6:22pm

    Kind of relevant

    A.R.T.: what is A.R.T.:

    "Q.: How will you achieve your goal?

    A.: We don't believe art needs to be scarce to have value. So all our pieces are issued in open editions.

    Q.: Besides open editions and a commitment to quality, are there other unifying characteristics to works of A.R.T.?

    A.: Every piece utilizes state of the art digital technology in its design and production, such as tele-fabrication, where digital files are transmitted over the air to robotically controlled machinery in remote studios. It's a reflection of our commitment to modernity and a pragmatic means of producing art at the scale we envision."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 9:28pm

    Just a question

    "I actually don't think we'll see much sampling in the future. "

    I find this somewhat odd and against the culture we live in.

    After viewing the Remix Manifesto, I thought that perhaps the mashup will continue to find prevalence, at least as a link to earlier music. Is it possible to expand on that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 22nd, 2010 @ 9:38pm

    Re: Just a question

    I find this somewhat odd and against the culture we live in.

    If you have the technology to create your own material, why bother to sample?

    I can understand the use of a sample as a statement, but if it is primarily used as a source of sound, increasingly there will be no need because smart technology will provide it. Why borrow when you can originate?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 6:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I actually don't think we'll see much sampling in the future. It won't be necessary. It's been an interesting interim technology, but I think once technology becomes sophisticated enough to create whatever sounds you can think of, you can create new material without messing with samples."

    I study human nature and I think sampling and mashups are going to stay with us. I remember a rap tribute from years back that used a police song and more recently songs that used ???Biggie smalls???. The one thing that is going to be difficult to replace is the singers voice and the recognition factor that goes along with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 9:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This person has a similar take as I do. Sampling came about as an inexpensive way to capture sounds if you didn't have a full studio. Now the apps are coming all the time.

    I think there will still be mashups as an artist statement, but in terms of creating music, as the technology becomes more user-friendly, I think many people will just play around with the tools in front of them rather than bothering to sample.

    Buy or Sell: Sampling has become minimal because artists don't recognize/listen to old school artists? | El New York Chico: "As a producer (I am not a super producer or anything, hell, I'm not even THAT good lol but I can comment because I am one), I will tell you the real and very OVERLOOKED reason of why producers don't sample anymore.

    They don't have to. Think about when Hip Hop started. Even the 'major' rappers where rapping in dingy equipment (KRS-One said this on one of the 'Beef' DVDs) so they had to make due. There weren't no sound libraries like they are now. You HAD to sample EVERYTHING (down to kicks and snares) if you weren't a rock band. So it wasn't the fact they wanted to sample, it was the fact that they needed to and since most musicians are 'hustlers', they made with what they had.

    Now fast forward to now where recently (two days ago exactly) I went on a torrent website and downloaded 2 GB of drum kits, and 4 GB of other sounds (piano, violins, guitars, synths, etc.), why would I need to know how to sample."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Now fast forward to now where recently (two days ago exactly) I went on a torrent website and downloaded 2 GB of drum kits, and 4 GB of other sounds (piano, violins, guitars, synths, etc.), why would I need to know how to sample.""

    I see your point, and have adapted my reality to suit. I still think people will sample for the vocal parts that are not so easily duplicated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, I understand now. I agree with Hephaestus with the sampling of voices. It will occur. Sadly since I don't know the future, it does seem that you'll be correct in the long term.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 1:51pm

    Amanda Palmer and touring

    I should probably post this to every Techdirt music thread. I've been saying that it is tough out there to be a musician. Palmer just posted this to her blog.

    Palmer's blog (not just this post but everything) is one of the best I have ever seen on being an artist today. She's both very honest and very insightful.

    Yes, she said that looking back, she should have done some things differently, but she also says that the economy combined with every band trying to make it on live shows is taking its toll.

    When you have an increasing number of bands out there, all competing for fans, the average income for each is going down.

    The best advice I can give is that for many people just play music and have a day job. You'll get to be creative, and hopefully you will be able to pay your bills.

    ___________
    blog amanda palmer
    the general touring climate blows...it's BAD out there, ticket prices are getting slashed and a lot of artists are playing to half-empty rooms due to the economy and the overgutted market since EVERY band and their moms are hitting the road to make up for the shortfall in record sales. and the weirdness of the show billing dented us...the shows were about half sold-out, which was actually pretty respectable...but it did teach me a damn fine lesson in marketing. we billed the show wrong; it should have been billed as an amanda palmer & jason webley extravaganza, with the twins as a support act, not the other way around. those who knew about the twins would have gotten what they expected, those only familiar with me & jason would have been strangely surprised by our weirdo stunts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 4:24pm

    The discussion in book publishing

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 4:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I love that Bertrand Russell quote. Reminds me a bit of The Second Coming: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Re: Some more music-related economic news

    Yeah, except nearly everyone attributes the drop in sales to the recession.

    I actually could not find a chart of music instrument sales by year (NAMM locks up their data), but I'm betting that it didn't take a downturn until after 2007.

    The vast majority of a music store's income is from people who do not make music for a living. If Elton John doesn't make that extra million, they'll lose a piano sale or two. But if thousands get laid off, they'll lose thousands of sales of guitar pedals, cheap amps, tabletop synths, etc.

    That's not even taking into account things like substituting computers for hardware (e.g. using Reaper and Ozone to mix and master, instead of buying a Soundcraft and a Pultec).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 5:13pm

    Re: Only Some Things are Cheaper

    As someone who has used AKG and Neumann, I can tell you right now that the gear used nowadays sounds at least as good as it did twenty years ago, and costs half as much.

    Even if not, though, half of the classic punk albums from the 80's were recorded on equipment that was little better than a boombox. Most of the classic recordings in all genres (rock, folk, soul, etc) were recorded with a couple of mics in a good-sounding room, and a McDonald's worker can afford these nowadays.

    The whole question is this: is massively expensive equipment necessary for making good art? If you believe the answer is yes, you'll probably be kind of alarmed at this democratization of music. If not, then you have nothing to worry about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 5:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Some more music-related economic news

    The vast majority of a music store's income is from people who do not make music for a living. If Elton John doesn't make that extra million, they'll lose a piano sale or two. But if thousands get laid off, they'll lose thousands of sales of guitar pedals, cheap amps, tabletop synths, etc.

    Very true. I thought I would toss it out both because it just turned up, and also if you are tallying various things (like iPod sales) as reflective of music-related sales, then why not also include NAMM figures?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 5:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Some more music-related economic news

    I actually could not find a chart of music instrument sales by year (NAMM locks up their data), but I'm betting that it didn't take a downturn until after 2007.

    I don't have time to compile it for you, but here it is:

    2009 NAMM Global Report featuring Music USA | NAMM.org
    2009 is only available to members, but the public can view these:
    2008 NAMM Global Report
    Music USA 2007
    Music USA 2006
    Music USA 2005
    Music USA 2004

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 6:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Some more music-related economic news

    Thanks, I couldn't find these links.

    If you go to the 2008 report, here:
    http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/namm/2008musicusa/

    ...you can view it online (in Flash, so I can't actually give you a direct link to anything).

    Go to Page 7, it has the overall retail sales for '99-'07. You'll see that sales have generally improved; there are two "tentpole" points at 2000 and 2005. Over the last 10-year period, overall retail sales were up 18.35%.

    If you compare 2008 with 2007 (pg. 6), oddly enough the biggest improvements were in "studio" gear (multi-track recording and signal processing) and "live" instruments (keyboards, string and wind instruments, sound reinforcement). The biggest decline was in more "DIY" instruments (DJ gear, portable keyboards, drum machines, karaoke).

    I think this might support my hypothesis: rather than replacing professional music, "amateur" music will reinforce it. Get everyone and their mother to perform music themselves, and it will make them more likely to spend money on professional music.

    I do agree with you that a culture is arising where everyone will produce music (and art in general) more easily than ever before. But I don't think that it will remove the demand for professional music; I think it will do the opposite.

    But I'm happy either way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 23rd, 2010 @ 10:34pm

    Re: Only Some Things are Cheaper

    "We can certainly edit a film cheaply enough, but building the sets on which to shoot the film we're going to edit isn't really any cheaper."

    What's wrong with a green screen and a lower budget?

    I don't think the Spy Kids cost a lot to make but the series raked in the dough.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2010 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: Can we stop referring to "weaker copyright" and instead refer to "stronger content-user rights" ?

    I have a strong feeling that you aren't even capable of reading the constitution, let alone comprehending it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 24th, 2010 @ 2:08pm

    Here's a sample of where it is all headed

    Imagine if you combine this program with a lyrics generator, so that you can crank out songs automatically. Then you can tweak them by certain parameters. And if you are worried about infringing on someone else's song (which won't be a problem if you are just creating songs for private consumption anyway), you could compare your songs to a database of previously published songs to see if there are too many similarities.

    Simple Songwriter

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 25th, 2010 @ 5:09am

    Re: Here's a sample of where it is all headed

    SL: "++Imagine++ if you combine this program with a lyrics generator, so that you can crank out songs automatically. Then you can tweak them by certain parameters. And if you are worried about infringing on someone else's song (which won't be a problem if you are just creating songs for private consumption anyway), you could compare your songs to a database of previously published songs to see if there are too many similarities."

    Me : When some writes a song equal to "Imagine" using computer aide ,,--- the sky will turn Green , Snow will fall in the Rainforest , and the G.W. Bush Presidency will be viewed favorable by historians.

    Lyrics , got to fit the Melody , Mood , and Rhythm of the song. that is the talent of Songwriting ,

    ," Oh darling , darling , Stand By Me ...( doe.. ray .. me,), Stand By Me,,,, Oh darling stand by Me".( doe.. ray .. me,)....

    ..... Computers never will conquer that.

    Remember: "Commander Data,, cannot whistle a tune." ( star trek)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    anon, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 12:59pm

    Re:

    Mabye they shoudnt charge 12.50 for movie tickets and 10$ for popcorn etc .... Less people go to the movies each year because it becomes more and more prohibitively expensive to do so ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    clamwatcher, Sep 22nd, 2010 @ 11:29pm

    Re: Amanda Palmer and touring

    It's just bad for you, you moron.

    Neil Gaiman is underwriting Scientology. The Scientologists list Neil Gaiman in the Cornerstone Newsletter along with Mary Gaiman, as contributing $35,000.00 in 2009. Being listed in the Cornerstone Newsletter means you are in good-standing with the cult.

    In 2010, Mary Gaiman was awarded the "Gold Humanitarian Award" for her contribution of $500,000.00 to Scientology. This is significant because Mary Gaiman continues to be Neil Gaiman’s business partner in The Blank Corporation, which is now Neil Gaiman's Scientology front and how he pays the cult.

    Gaiman is also the "Vitamin Heir" of Scientology. The Gaiman family owns G&G Vitamins which reaps 6 million a year from selling The Purification Rundown Vitamins.

    Gaiman's two sisters, Claire Edwards and Lizzie Calciole are not just high-ranking Scientologists, they are the head of RECRUITING and the head of Wealden House, the Scientology stronghold in East Grinstead. These two cannot associate with Neil unless he is in good standing.

    Amanda Palmer would not be allowed anywhere near this royal family of Scientology unless she was also a Scientologist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This