If only more musicians would read this type of analysis instead of only reading the usual "musician reporters" (aka lawyers claiming to be musicians) selective quoting to keep the "sky is falling" mantra going.
Actually you can go into the automotive business. You can do so without worry. You must conform to safety laws with whatever products you produce and labour laws, but those are for safety, not legalized monopoly. Quite different.
Second, why don't you do that, design the perfect electric car, charges via solar panels, uses the ideas built upon the Panasonic battery patent owned by Chevron, so you can create a car that charges in an hour, has a 500mi range on full charge (6-8h) using standard 15A 120VAC power (likely more given the power required for such a range), all stored within a super efficient, lightweight, environmentally friendly, reliable battery (maybe scrap the Panasonic idea base and come up with your own). And the vehicle will be built in the US, by domestic employees whom are paid a decent wage (not GE's definition of a decent wage), and will be affordable, half the cost of Tesla's vehicles.
Then watch the legal shitstorm that follows you, from oil companies, car companies, all claiming you can't innovate like that, you're violating their bought laws, you'll kill the entire economy, and even if they haven't a legal leg to stand on, their money will bankrupt you back into the horse and buggy era.
Only then can you compare to what has happened thanks to Napster lawsuits and the attempts at innovation in the music biz.
Same source as always Mike, the Trichordist, who then goes and gets manipulated data (I've seen the corrected figures, corrected for inflation and such and there's a huge diff).
We know it is all in the label of "full time musician." However, I've not seen the survey, which could easily include "Are you a full time musician who has no other source of income?" type of questioning. That easily leads to bias. Some might have secondary incomes. Steve Vai created Light Without Heat and keeps bees, likely an additional source of income, but who would argue he's not a full time musician?
So even though this person might source a study, without seeing the questions used for the study, we can't quite discount it, other than attack the credibility of the source, rather than the method used - which would increase our credibility.
The incentive to sue is amazing isn't it? And so productive. I mean all those artists making money, feeding their families because of lawsuits. All those would-be fans started buying thanks to lawsuits.
The world is wonderful thanks to copyrights.
Wake up buddy. The only reason you've heard of classical music is because it wasn't locked up with copyrights and any orchestra or musician can perform it.
Imagine if music created in the last century wasn't locked up, and others could play it, how culturally rich would we be?
What fucking benefit does a douchebag law like copyright afford society? Seriously, what benefit? Do you think it was copyrights that made Michael Jackson famous or propelled thriller to be highest grossing album of all time? Uh NO!
Like patents, copyright is simply a tool used to stifle innovation (fucking batteries in hybrids and electric vehicles are limited thanks to Chevron owning Panasonic's battery patent) or fight competition.
You go on and on about how copyrights are required but what good have they actually done? Give me one example where copyrights actually did something and not because of the content itself! You can't! But we can give you MANY examples where copyright maximalists have done nothing but try to stifle innovation and kill competition.
You love to write (as does Lowery) if free was so good why are you afraid of copyrights? Who said we're afraid of copyrights? We're afraid of copyright abuse, laws trying to kill competition in the name of copyrights. We're afraid of bullshit copyright claims to silence dissenting views and critiques of works.
And if copyrights were so fucking good why bitch and complain for the last 60 years? Why try to make up bullshit about old boss new boss with out-of-context quotes and anecdotal data (which he's NEVER put up - seriously -where's the charts and tables? Oh, you quote RIAA numbers or RIAA paid for studies - riiiiight)?
It's so obvious that it hurts you to understand, the majority of the population don't care about your copyrights. When laws don't fit, you change the laws.
Copyrights are not natural either. And you would not see much complaining if they were used in original context and with original intent. But they are not, just like patents.
Your IP is mere horseshit and nothing more than control freaks trying to maximize their temporary, short term gains instead of thinking of the future.
They claim copyright ownership, as written in said claim.
I have not bothered to contact Alex Day directly and see if he owns his copyrights, which would make said DMCA complete bullshit and actually warranting of fraud-claims.
But who knows what his YouTube Partner/network agreements are. If it were Google's agreement to own the rights (via the partnership) then BPI can file all they want. It's not like there's any enforceable law against bogus DMCA filings.
3500 + 10 000 pounds per month is pretty damn good living.
How is it the new boss is bad? Or is it, as Alex says, you need to "get" the new boss first before you can make use of it?
Perhaps that's the real problem and that's why cherrypicking quotes, to help remove them from context (such as the Thom Yorke post where cleverly quoting and drawing context, including the implication that Thom said something when it was the linked article Author who says "Google", not Thom) causes this lovely "cheer" from people who don't get it, and also don't earn 13 500 pounds per month without doing concerts/selling tshirts.