SomeGuy 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (242) comment rss

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As Blaise noted, between 1986 and 2002, the main outlet for music was the radio. NIN was big back then, and back then "big" meant getting air play and making the charts. After 2005, the Internet has been a HUGE component of Reznor's art; additionally, he quit the Lable he'd been signed onto and did his own thing.

    You see a correlation between fewer works and more airtime, assuming that if Trent worked less he'd make more. I see a correlation between dropping his Lable and less airtime, assuming that he's found other outlets to get his art out there. What neither of us are talking about is how much Reznor made, back then or currently. I don't think either of us know, and he's not sharing, but I think success is more about how much compensation he's getting than how high on the charts he is.

    Also, I'm a big NIN fan myself, but I think it's generally agreed that while Interesting, The Slip was kind of weak. It had a few good songs (I'd vote for 1,000,000 and Corona), but nothing spectacular.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 11:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Imagine musicians on every street corner

    It's an interesting idea. I don't think it holds, though, precisely because not everyone is talented like that. I'm not -- I've tried, here and there, but my skills aren't in music performance or composition. And, based on this observation, I think we'll still see stars and fans, even if it will be on a smaller, more-personal level. I don't think everyone will have to have a "day job," but I do agree that it'll be better.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce

    The AC you commented to agrees with you. AC there agrees with your apocalypse. I and many others here don't. AC there ignores the fact that it's not just about buying a t-shirt or box set, it's about supporting the artist. If you can't get fans who want to support you, you've already failed.

    As far as using logos and whatnot, if you have loyal fans, all you have to do is say "that's not me." If nothing else, despite "railing against" copyright and similar, we support false-advertising laws, so it's not like we're out to kill ALL protections.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I dispute that it isn't there. I dispute all the ifs in my above comment. And income quotes elsewhere around here seem to support that. It's an economically harsh time, but I haven't heard of bands dissolving; quite the opposite, it seems like there are more and more bands forming. They can't all be just scraping by or some WOULD dissolve. So, somehow, I think your observations are wrong.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:51am

    Re: They won't continue to be scarce

    I think I tenatively agree with you. But only tenatively. In the past, a really talented local band still hat to win the lottery to get signed to a Lable, and at that point they were probably f'd over, because it's either sign or stayb local. The lables had all the power. That's not the case any more. A talented band in Seattle can be heard WORLDWIDE at almost no cost. The trick, and what we talk about here at Techdirt, is how to capture and take advantage of that free exposure.

    I don't think it'll be easy. And I'll admit, I'm not sure we'll have megastars like Jackson, Bono, and The Beatles (but i'd argue that's not much of a loss). I think MORE people will be able to make a living at music because exposure and distribution will be easier, less expensive, and not reliant on the Lables.

    I agree that artists should play for the love of it, and that DIY isn't necessarily easier than the old lottery, but it's better for the artists (who retain the power, rather than signing it away) and it's better for consumers (who get to be exposed to more and better and more-diverse music). I see a bright, bight future ahead.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:45am

    Re: Re: Price perception

    More songs, sure, but I haven't seen evidence that they move away from favorite bands. If a band stops producing they might (might) beforgotten, but it seems to me that popular bands stay popular.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:43am

    Re:

    You're still ignoring the fact that fans want to support the artist. If you don't, he can't make more music, and that upsets fans. They won't buy the knockoffs because that hurts their idol. Therefore, you can't be undercut. They want to pay YOU, not some outsourced knock-off.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:41am

    Re: Imagine musicians on every street corner

    I'm not sure your vision of the future is realistic. If they're good, they'll get support. If they're not, they won't and they'll stop. They will not wallpaper the world.

    The question is this: one musician is on the street corner playing; you can hear his stuff and decide whether or not you like him, and based on that choose to give him money. Another musician hids inside and requires that you give him money first, and then he'll let you inside to hear his song but you aren't allowed to tell anyone about him and there's no money-back garontee. For the sake of argument, assume they're both of even talent and appeal. Who do you expect to get more patronage?

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If no one's spending money on music, there's no pie to begin with.

    If no one's spending MORE on music, the pie isn't getting bigger.

    It's true we're in economically hard times, but that's not something that any business model can fix. if no one's buying music, it doesn't matter if you're using a new modle or you're signed up to a old Lable, you're still not making money.

    So what was the point of your comment?

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:32am

    Re:

    what you are getting has no real value.



    If you think money has no real value, I don't know how to discuss these things with you. Are you advocating that musicians are just trying to rip off their fans, tricking them into paying for something that's worthless?

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce

    Of course, a limited number of truly inspired, gifted performers will succeed. But the millions of aspiring bands who hope to make a living at this will find it a tough go because they are one of millions.

    This is nothing new, but because it's not happening behind closed doors, you'll see more of it.

    On MySpace they would send bulletins, event announcements, post on your comments board.
    Now I am starting to get so many event notices on Facebook, I rarely look at those now either.

    But I bet you still keep in touch with your friends and keep up with things you care about. I get reams of spam every day, but I don't quit talking with my college friends. So, what's your point?

    So if you like the design and want a cheap copy, you'll find it.

    And if they want your music for free, they can find that, too. It's not enough, and never really has been, to just offer something for sale. You need to give people a reason to buy. But that's still only half of it; you need to connect with people so that you can make them fans. Fans don't just want the t-shirt for cheap, they honestly want to support the musician. That's key to making this work.

    For example, now there are lots of bands with cellos. And so it goes.

    And this is nothing new. Similar bands with similar sounds have existed for as long as there's been music. It's competition. The good artists will do well. The mediocre artists maybe won't be able to sustain themselves, and the bad artists will go away. even at that, just because I like one band doesn't mean I'll necessarily like a sound-alike. and maybe I will. Again, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.

    Everything they do is likely to blend into the mass of other artists doing something similar.

    If you don't stand out an differentiate yourself, you'll die. I don't see how that's different from the way things are today, or why it's even a bad thing. At the very least, musicians can now go directly to the public to succeed or fail, rather than trying to convince a Big Lable gatekeeper before they get a shot at it. I predict that this will lead to more diversity, not the bland future you see. There will be fewer Backstreet Boys and over-processed pop because they won't have corporate backers to keep them alive.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 09:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm still not convinced on the Value-Price argument. A song has inherent value that doesn't depend on how scarce or hard to replace it is. Music is tied to us for emotional value, and that won't be diminished by the fact that I don't have to worry about breaking a CD or losing an authorization key. The song will not be less valuable to me because it's always available. Nor can it be "replaced" in the sense that some other song could readily usurp it's value, the way you might replace a microwave or a used bike.

    Additionally, demand is not going to drive the price anywhere because, as a digital good, it's an abundant resource. If a million people download the song, it doesn't* make it less available for the million-and-first person. (There are certain technological restraints based on bandwidth and available download sources, but for our purposes these things can generally be ignored.)

    Now, the language bit wasn't mine, but there's one point I want to pick at. You say, "Even in Techduh terms, an artist can only produce a certain number of songs in a lifetime, and as such, the songs are a rarity and valuable." Now, as noted, I agree that songs are valuable, but I disagree on their rarity. That is to say, a song is scarce before it is recorded -- it's "rare" in that one he could write/perform it, etc. Once it's been recorded, though, it becomes abundant because that recording can be replicated infinitely at zero cost. I don't believe this has killed value, as the song has value (or not) based on it's own intrinsic qualities. The point is, if you want to "sell" music, you have to sell the creation of music, since that's scarce, not copies of recordings.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 08:41am

    Re:

    If the pie gets bigger faster than your slice gets smaller, you get MORE pie. And then everyone's happy.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 08:40am

    Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce

    Also, there's more differentiation that isn't being accounted for. Access to Artist A isn't the same as Access to Artist B. So you won't have "50 million of these things", you'll have a number of different artists offering similar but differentiated products. It doesn't matter if there are 50 million "limited edition box sets" if I'm only concerned with a pool of 250.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 08:34am

    Re:

    You're neglecting the fact that people WANT to support artists. Yeah, Joe Schmoe could complie a cheaper box set, but if buying from him doesn't support the artist, then fans won't buy from him.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 07:48am

    Re: Re: To simplify

    Actually, if it turns out to be not enough people, the ARTIST failed, not the model. Either they didn't offer something people wanted, or they just weren't that good. If you're selling something no one wants, you'll fail.

    Not sure what you mean by "anything that doesn't have fans the way music does." I mean, there are fans of authors (Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, John Hodgman), and there are fans of software companies (Bioware, Blizzard, Google), and there are fans of actors (Sean Penn, Niel Patrick Harris, Christian Bale). There are even fans of directors/producers (Joss Wheadon, Peter Jackson, the Wachowski brothers). I guess no one's really a "fan" of, say, Verizon or Baltimore Gas and Electric, but they offer a tangible service so I doubt they'll be affected by abundant markets any time soon. (Of course, I know people who are violently loyal to Verizon or Apple, to the point that they make financially-suboptimal choices, so maybe that counts as being a "fan"...)

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 07:31am

    Re: To simplify

    Actually, you SHOULDN'T buy something you don't want. If you want to support the artist, and they're smart, they'll either offer you something you do want to buy or let you give them money directly. There's no reason for them to not sell you a CD, just because the tracks are free, for example.

    The idea isn't "how can we get music for free," but "how do we deal with music being free." Because music IS free. On the pessimistic side, you're music is being pirated and you have to address that -- threatening your fans probably isn't a good idea. On the other hand, piracy aside, if other bands start doing this (and they are), THEIR music is free, so how do you compete with them? They're getting a lot more exposure than a band who requires an upfront fee for the privelidge of their music.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 07:25am

    Re: Re: To simplify

    Once I make the pizza, you can have as much as you want (as can everyone else). But I'm not making new pizza until I'm paid for it. If I've already been paid to make a sausage pizza, what do I care what happens to it? Also, if you want me to make fresh pizza, you'll need to pay additional for that, and only so many people can get it while it's fresh (there's only so much room in my shop).

    Once I make a song, you can share it as much as you want. But I'm not making a new song until I'm paid for it. Once I've been paid to make a particular song, what do I care what happens to it? Also, if you want me to perform live music, you'll need to pay additional for that, and only so many people can enjoy a live performance (there's only so many seats in a venue).

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 07:20am

    Re:

    Value and price are not directly related, but they are connected in an elastic sort of a way. If price goes way up, it naturally will pull value up with it (trailing indicator). In the same manner, if value is lost, price is dragged down as a result.

    There's a flaw here. You say that price drags value around, then turn around and say that value drags prive around. You can't have it both ways. It seems to me that value is the more-fixed quality; you can't make people value something more just by raising the price. When gas prices go up, people buy less gas because it's not worth that much to them. When gas prices go down, people don't stop buying gas.

    Anyways, your music apocalypse, where all music sinks to the quality of garage bands, doesn't make any sense at all. Why would talented people because less talented simply because other people are bad at what they do? The Greats of the past aren't worse musicians because SOME people chose to make commercial jingles. And even if lots of people make vapid, poorly-composed music, that doesn't mean there won't be ANYONE who has something meaningful to express and the talent to do it well. And they will shine brighter for all the mediocrity around them -- and people will VALUE their art more because of the rest of the drivel being made. And when people value something, they're willing to give up their money for it; the trick is finding a way to capture that money people WANT to give you.

    The models discussed on Techdirt try to address just that scenario.

  • On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity

    SomeGuy ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Techdirt continues to excuse piracy away

    ... Are you arguing that piracy should be stopped because it saves people money? Because it keeps people from buying crap they don't want?

Next >>