"Okay, how do you know you're not ignoring "good content" and "following" what's actually crap if you just knew where the real good stuff was"
"the world just needs good filters, and we keep seeing more and more of those showing up every day. In the music world, there's a ton of new music being produced all the time -- and much of it isn't to my liking. But at the same time I feel like I'm living in renaissance of wonderful music, because I'm able to find fantastic new music all the time via a variety of tools: friends, blogs, Spotify, Turntable.fm, Pandora, and even a few cool (small) record labels who I follow because they release a ton of music I like."
Perhaps your anti-Mike filter is doing a good job of blocking out the relevant bits of his articles.
if you aren't happy with the filters that are currently out there (I'm not), make your own and people will likely flock to it.
I personally know several musicians who have been offered contracts and refused to sign, because they were smart enough to read the fine print, do the math, and realize how much better they have it doing it on their own.
If labels want to survive, they need to adapt and become publicity agents and filters. There is far more music out there than I could ever listen to in 10 life-times. How do I find the good stuff? Solve that, and you've got the future of music.
"...photographs are image records of external conditions, ergo they are NOT a creation of the photographer"
As a photographer, and more importantly, as a fan of photography, I can say that this claim is dead-wrong.
Spend 10 minutes looking through some random facebook photo albums, then look through a great photographer's portfolio and tell me there's no difference.
Composition, exposure, aperture, lens selection, colour balance, lighting, posing, etc. all have a significant effect on the final image. Each of these factors involves a creative decision that alters the scene in some way to create the photograph.
Saying a photograph is undeserving of protection is like saying a realistic painting is undeserving of protection, because like a photograph, realism also just an un-manipulated image.
It's not about consuming works in the public domain. It's about re-using them. Sure, I can listen to any song or watch any movie for free. But I can't include music from the 1950's in my own videos. I can't have old AM radio classics in the background of a scene. A character or poster in the background might lead to a legal headache if the estate is packed with douches.
My view: If they can steal from the public domain, we can steal from copyright owners guilt-free.
I think I might be just young enough that remembering a source rather than a detail has always seemed normal to me.
I've had older people criticise my outsourcing of memory and calculation abilities to electronic devices. They often say, "What if you are cut off from the internet? Then what will you do? What if your phone is dead? These are basic skills that everyone should have-just in case you find myself without your fancy toys"
I respond by asking them if they know how to start a fire by rubbing sticks together, or if they can make a spear head by banging rocks, or if they know how to chase down and hunt animals using hand tools. "No? but these are skills everyone should have, just in case you find yourself without your fancy toys!"
Why do people only take issue with how brand new technology affects us?
to paraphrase a quote from Douglas Adams:
Everything invented before you were born is normal. Everything invented before you are 30 is new and exciting.
Everything invented after you are 30 is unnatural and scary.
CDs benefit from economies of scale. Printing 100 copies means a high unit cost, while printing 1000 copies is a lot cheaper in the long run. Plus, the designer and photographer only have to be paid once, so more copies means more money in the end. The risk is, of course, vastly overestimating the size and passion of your fanbase.
While decent recording gear has gotten cheap, performance gear is still quite expensive. It can easily cost a few grand for the speakers, mics, cables, instruments, and mixers. While touring does bring in a good amount of money, it can take a while to recoup those initial losses. And if they bought it all at once, and they aren't playing often enough, the interest on their debts may be growing faster than their tour income flows in. Either way, they should be playing more often, and only buying gear when they can afford it.
"When it is no longer economically viable to produce the content you are all pirating, you will be left with little."
Funny, the amount of new work being released under open licenses like the creative commons seems to be growing steadily.
The Banshee music player links to more free content than I could ever listen to, and I've wasted more hours than I would like to admit sitting in front of YouTube. The cost of creating high-quality content has been dropping consistently over the past 20 years, and that drop in production costs has vastly accelerated in the last 3 years.
All this free stuff has lead to far more content being available. Too much content. The issue that must be addressed now is one of filtering, not production.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Photography is not art*. Jazz is not music.
"There have been many cases of musicians and other artists creating stuff in their sleep"
So the tens of thousands of hours they put in to reach that point mean nothing?
When Picasso was asked how long it took him to make a painting, he answered by telling them his age.
Stephen Leacock was a writer of both textbooks and a comedies. When people assumed his comedy was just him goofing around, while his textbooks were his serious work, he would reply by saying that the textbooks were easy, all he had to do was find and arrange the facts. The humour was hard, he had to create something new every time.
"I find that to be very snobbish."
I'm reminded of an old saying. Something about throwing stones...
What if the artist is also the one who created the photoshop filter? A lot of work and artistic choices goes into creating stuff like that too.
Then you have found one of the flaws in my argument. (and it only took you 10 minutes, too...)
As an artist (I was an artist before I was a photographer.) this is the kind of stuff that interests me the most. Digital media and copyright are some of the biggest issues going, an no artists are talking about it beyond saying "give me my money; I own everything!"
My last big project was a series of 'invisible paintings', where IR LEDs were hidden behind canvas. Our eyes can't see IR, but digital cameras can, so the only way to see the art is to photograph it, which museums and galleries don't allow visitors to do.
I kind of like it how most photographers aggressively cling to their copyrights, it gives me a competitive advantage: I sell the rights back to the client. Once the job is over, I don't need or want those images, I can offer a "deluxe package" where the copyrights are handed over to them with the prints. They are happy because, "hey, re-prints are free...in the long run, going with this guy is way cheaper than the rest..." and I'm happy because its 'for-sure' money, not 'maybe later' money. It's like selling deeds to plots of land on the moon, I'm getting their cash for giving them essentially nothing.
My opinion on this is not a very sound argument, but it's how I feel in my gut:
If the artist opend up the original photo and ran a 'pixelate' filter, it's infringement; if it's drawn by hand, pixel by pixel, (even if it's traced over the original photo) it should be considered an original artwork. I know that's an arbitrary distinction and the end results of both processes may be identical, but that's just how I feel about appropriation in art.