This would be an interesting argument to bring up in court: Ask the RIAA to show what the defendant actually uploaded. Not the generalized whole song, but the actual bits. I wonder if trying to open/play that broken file would sway a jury...
"Why shouldn't he? He's using something that you as the artist or I as the engineer created really just for the purpose of marketing himself."
What about that Painting behind the bar? Should the bar owner pay the artist each day that a customer walks up to the bar and looks at the Painting? That is art, sold by an artist, but somehow musicians are special because their artwork only last 3 minutes and then has to be replayed?
How about those custom bar stools? Do we need to pay that artist a fee everytime somebody sits their drunk ass down on them?
What about that Sculpture in the corner?
Those photo's of bar patrons hanging on the wall to the bathroom?
"A potential customer has heard a great song which they've shown enough interest in to at least investigate further, and both the customer and the industry has been failed at the first hurdle. We should be recompensed for that loss of a sale."
I call bullsh*t on this. It is not a lost sale if the customer who hears that song would never have bought it in the first place, nor chose to play it on the jukebox! It's not a lost sale if that customer put money into the jukebox to play the song in the first place.
It is a false assumption to think that everybody who likes a particular song would purchase it if it wasn't available on a jukebox at their local pub.
Personally there are some songs that I like to listen to but I would never purchase them, nor would I miss them if I never heard them again. This situation is not a lost sale, ie: if I keep hearing the song or if it disappeared off the face of the earth I would never have bought it.
Musicians, Artists, Actors, all claim that there is no such thing as bad press as it is a bigger problem for nobody to know who they are than for people to hate them.
I am positing that Brand Recognition can be viewed in a similar light.
It is better to be recognized (good or bad) than have nobody know who you are.
"At what point does Hansens and Monster Energy Drink realize that in this deal to outsource trademark bullying to Continental Enterprises, they've done significantly more harm to their own brands?"
Well it is getting Monster Energy Drink in the news...
We have the technology to make music files infinite and free, but that will never change the fact that listening to a song on your iPod is drastically different than listening to the same song live, and sharing that experience with other people. This experience is scarce.
The money is not in listening to the song on your stereo, think of that as an advertisement to get you to purchase the actual scarce material: Live Concerts, t-shirts, records, meet-and-greets...etc. The songs that are played on the radio provide a window for the musicians to advertise themselves and drive business to where they make money in scarce goods.
There will still be a business for the musician (as they provide concerts); there will always be a job for managers (as not all musicians at more than making music); there will always be a job for song writers/editors/producers. These things will not change when music files become infinitely free. The CD makers will lose a job, but so did the Buggy Whip manufacturers in their time.
Advertising companies have been using music to sell other scarce goods for decades, so why is it so hard for people to understand that this is where the music industry is inevitably heading. The music files / songs on the radio are not what make the artists money; it is the concerts and other scarce goods associated with the musician that make the money. The song files are the commercials for that artist.
We have the technology to make music files infinite and free, but that will never change the fact that listening to a song on your iPod is drastically different than listening to the same song live, and sharing that experience with other people. This experience is scarce.
The money is not in listening to the song on your stereo, think of that as an advertisement to get you to purchase the actual scarce material: Live Concerts, t-shirts, records, meet-and-greets...etc. The songs that are played on the radio provide a window for the musicians to advertise themselves and drive business to where they make money in scarce goods.
There will still be a business for the musician (as they provide concerts); there will always be a job for managers (as not all musicians at more than making music); there will always be a job for song writers/editors/producers. These things will not change when music files become infinitely free. The CD makers will lose a job, but so did the Buggy Whip manufacturers in their time.
Advertising companies have been using music to sell other scarce goods for decades, so why is it so hard for people to understand that this is where the music industry is inevitably heading. The music files / songs on the radio are not what make the artists money; it is the concerts and other scarce goods associated with the musician that make the money. The song files are the commercials for that artist.
Doesn't it go "There is no such thing as bad press" ?
I mean wouldn't their advertising costs go down if their company became a household name? Couldn't this be a company looking to take advantage of the Streisand Effect? In effect have this become such a big deal and have their name become so widely know, then "clean up" their image, and rake in the dough.
Maybe the definitions used for the "objectionable" words were not your standard definitions, but more of the Urban Dictionary definitions. ie: Screw - to have sex...
This is the only rational explanation that I can come up with...but I haven't even seen the contents of the app yet.
In this down economy, here is a new opportunity to make money:
1. Go the the UK
2. Walk around the tourist attractions
3. Sue the pants off anybody who catches me in a photo of said tourist attraction.
...horrible, horrible decision.
More thoughts: How about if a News camera "photographs" someone? The tape might not make it off the cutting room floor, but it sounds like from this ruling that if they taped you it would be in violation of your rights.
I agree with mike, the suicide has nothing to do with this case. She is being charged with Computer Fraud! Not harassment, not murder, not abuse. FRAUD.
It is very sad that this girl died because of what happened to her, but the suicide does not have anything to do with the charge of FRAUD.
I also took this survey, not because I love his music, but more because I like what he is doing with his music. Hopefully what Trent is doing will help transform the music industry.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as ChrisB)
This would be an interesting argument to bring up in court: Ask the RIAA to show what the defendant actually uploaded. Not the generalized whole song, but the actual bits. I wonder if trying to open/play that broken file would sway a jury...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys scare me. (as ChrisB)
"Why shouldn't he? He's using something that you as the artist or I as the engineer created really just for the purpose of marketing himself."
What about that Painting behind the bar? Should the bar owner pay the artist each day that a customer walks up to the bar and looks at the Painting? That is art, sold by an artist, but somehow musicians are special because their artwork only last 3 minutes and then has to be replayed?
How about those custom bar stools? Do we need to pay that artist a fee everytime somebody sits their drunk ass down on them?
What about that Sculpture in the corner?
Those photo's of bar patrons hanging on the wall to the bathroom?
"A potential customer has heard a great song which they've shown enough interest in to at least investigate further, and both the customer and the industry has been failed at the first hurdle. We should be recompensed for that loss of a sale."
I call bullsh*t on this. It is not a lost sale if the customer who hears that song would never have bought it in the first place, nor chose to play it on the jukebox! It's not a lost sale if that customer put money into the jukebox to play the song in the first place.
It is a false assumption to think that everybody who likes a particular song would purchase it if it wasn't available on a jukebox at their local pub.
Personally there are some songs that I like to listen to but I would never purchase them, nor would I miss them if I never heard them again. This situation is not a lost sale, ie: if I keep hearing the song or if it disappeared off the face of the earth I would never have bought it.
Re: Bad advertisement is good arvertisment? (as ChrisB)
Musicians, Artists, Actors, all claim that there is no such thing as bad press as it is a bigger problem for nobody to know who they are than for people to hate them.
I am positing that Brand Recognition can be viewed in a similar light.
It is better to be recognized (good or bad) than have nobody know who you are.
(as ChrisB)
"At what point does Hansens and Monster Energy Drink realize that in this deal to outsource trademark bullying to Continental Enterprises, they've done significantly more harm to their own brands?"
Well it is getting Monster Energy Drink in the news...
Scarce goods are where the money is at (as ChrisB)
We have the technology to make music files infinite and free, but that will never change the fact that listening to a song on your iPod is drastically different than listening to the same song live, and sharing that experience with other people. This experience is scarce.
The money is not in listening to the song on your stereo, think of that as an advertisement to get you to purchase the actual scarce material: Live Concerts, t-shirts, records, meet-and-greets...etc. The songs that are played on the radio provide a window for the musicians to advertise themselves and drive business to where they make money in scarce goods.
There will still be a business for the musician (as they provide concerts); there will always be a job for managers (as not all musicians at more than making music); there will always be a job for song writers/editors/producers. These things will not change when music files become infinitely free. The CD makers will lose a job, but so did the Buggy Whip manufacturers in their time.
Advertising companies have been using music to sell other scarce goods for decades, so why is it so hard for people to understand that this is where the music industry is inevitably heading. The music files / songs on the radio are not what make the artists money; it is the concerts and other scarce goods associated with the musician that make the money. The song files are the commercials for that artist.
Scarce goods are where the money is at (as ChrisB)
We have the technology to make music files infinite and free, but that will never change the fact that listening to a song on your iPod is drastically different than listening to the same song live, and sharing that experience with other people. This experience is scarce.
The money is not in listening to the song on your stereo, think of that as an advertisement to get you to purchase the actual scarce material: Live Concerts, t-shirts, records, meet-and-greets...etc. The songs that are played on the radio provide a window for the musicians to advertise themselves and drive business to where they make money in scarce goods.
There will still be a business for the musician (as they provide concerts); there will always be a job for managers (as not all musicians at more than making music); there will always be a job for song writers/editors/producers. These things will not change when music files become infinitely free. The CD makers will lose a job, but so did the Buggy Whip manufacturers in their time.
Advertising companies have been using music to sell other scarce goods for decades, so why is it so hard for people to understand that this is where the music industry is inevitably heading. The music files / songs on the radio are not what make the artists money; it is the concerts and other scarce goods associated with the musician that make the money. The song files are the commercials for that artist.
Isn't there a saying... (as ChrisB)
Doesn't it go "There is no such thing as bad press" ?
I mean wouldn't their advertising costs go down if their company became a household name? Couldn't this be a company looking to take advantage of the Streisand Effect? In effect have this become such a big deal and have their name become so widely know, then "clean up" their image, and rake in the dough.
Maybe...... (as ChrisB)
Maybe the definitions used for the "objectionable" words were not your standard definitions, but more of the Urban Dictionary definitions. ie: Screw - to have sex...
This is the only rational explanation that I can come up with...but I haven't even seen the contents of the app yet.
(as ChrisB)
In this down economy, here is a new opportunity to make money:
1. Go the the UK
2. Walk around the tourist attractions
3. Sue the pants off anybody who catches me in a photo of said tourist attraction.
...horrible, horrible decision.
More thoughts: How about if a News camera "photographs" someone? The tape might not make it off the cutting room floor, but it sounds like from this ruling that if they taped you it would be in violation of your rights.
Re: well (as Anonymous Coward)
I agree with mike, the suicide has nothing to do with this case. She is being charged with Computer Fraud! Not harassment, not murder, not abuse. FRAUD. It is very sad that this girl died because of what happened to her, but the suicide does not have anything to do with the charge of FRAUD.
Re: Spot on (as ChrisB)
I also took this survey, not because I love his music, but more because I like what he is doing with his music. Hopefully what Trent is doing will help transform the music industry.