Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260)

• On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

  

  Karl ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 06:37pm

  Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

  You still owe the label the cash they gave you and so you have to get a job and pay them back, unless you strike some deal where they take all your rights and forgive the debt.
  
  To be fair to the labels (I know - I'm shuddering myself), this isn't exactly true. If you get dropped, you don't have to pay them back out of anything except the royalties from the records you produced on their label. And oftentimes, the contract stipulates that you can't go to another label until your "debt" is paid off. But it's not like they dock your pay from the local 7-11.
  
  They keep the rights to the recordings in any case.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

  

  Karl ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 06:27pm

  Re: Re: Artists themselves

  Speak of the devil. You're never going to stop shitting on artists, are you?
  
  You want to remove choices from artists by imposing forced collectivism
  
  Where the fuck did this come from? "Forced collectivism?" I have no idea how relaxing a government-granted monopoly is supposed to be "forced collectivism."
  
  And riddle me this, Batman: How is shutting down filesharing websites, so that no artists can use it even if they want to, respecting artists' decisions? Like you said, your freedoms end when they infringe upon mine. Sharing my music, whether through The Pirate Bay or anywhere else, is my freedom, my choice. You have no right to take that away from me.
  
  Plus, even if your work is on a filesharing site, that doesn't remove your ability to sell your music, or license it, or earn money for live performances, or collect from BMI/ASCAP, or what have you. You still have every ability to make money that you had before. No amount of filesharing can take that away from you.
  
  The fact is, as a whole, musicians are far worse off now than they were a decade ago
  
  Nope. Try again. And try to do it without linking to that Trichordist site - it lies.
  
  Examples: SoundScan only collects POS data if you register a UPC with them, regardless of whether you sell stuff on iTunes (&etc) or not.
  
  There notion that there are fewer releases is not true.
  
  And, when you hear that there were "only" 75,000 Albums released in 2010, keep in mind that from 1992-2001, the labels never released more than 38,900 albums released per year. The number in 2001 was 27,000 new releases. That's from the RIAA; in fact, they may have been wrong (or lying) - this BusinessWeek article quotes Neilsen SoundScan as saying the number for 2002 was 31,734 new releases.
  
  In other words: in ten years, the number of new releases more than doubled.
  
  You also won't hear that, according to the BLS, there were only 46,440 Musicians and Singers working in the U.S. In 2011, that number was 42,530 - a difference of 10%. I guess things weren't that much better under the old label model, eh?
  
  (Incidentally, the years with the highest numbers of employed musicians was 2001-2002: the Napster years. Things declined after that; but the number of working musicians increased again in 2004 - the year iTunes came out.)
  
  Oh, and the number of "Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers?" The earliest data I could find for that was 2007. At that point, there were 1,640 in the "Musicians and Singers" category, making up 3.28% of that category. In 2001, that number rose to 1,910 people and 4.00%. So independents are gaining ground (slightly).
  
  So, that article is a lie. And that's only on one article. The entire site is full of bullshit. It's not even subtle bullshit, either. It's obvious, rampant hate speech directed at any part of the music industry that's not based upon the old label model.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 04:27pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  Copyright allows the creators to CHOSE how their works are distributed and exploited.
  
  Yes. Copyright allows the copyright holders (not necessarily the creators) to choose how to restrict other people. Were it not for copyright, any album that I paid for would be my property, so I could make a copy of it, distribute it, etc - just as I can with e.g. a chair. Copyright takes that choice away from me, by law. It is a "negative right;" specifically, a government-granted pure monopoly right, like the Dutch East India Trading Company used to enjoy. It does not actually grant any abilities to the copyright holders themselves. They would be free to produce artworks, sell them, license them, etc, even if copyright didn't exist at all. Instead, all copyright does is allow rights holders to take that ability away from everyone else. The fact that those abilities are expression makes it even less moral. By your own argument, it is against liberty.
  
  I personally don't believe it is "against liberty." It is a restriction on choice, but a necessary one. Not the laws we have now, of course - those have gone way too far - but the right for an artist to restrict other peoples' choices is necessary. A necessary evil, but still necessary.
  
  You are proposing either an illegal, unethical, lawless internet or complete draconian censorship.
  
  I would like you to show me where I have even suggested anything of the sort. In fact, it's usually those who are for "draconian censorship" that have presented that dichotomy.
  
  AMEN! Was that so hard? Jeeesh!
  
  Can you point to a single time I suggested otherwise?
  
  Sorry, what they did was illegally exploit the artists work to generate advertising revenue
  
  What they did was secondary copyright infringement. The primary infringers (the users) were not doing it for profit. That The Pirate Bay monetized it made it illegal, but the infringement itself wasn't done for profit. They didn't "exploit the artists work," they exploited the fact that fans like to share music. There's a difference.
  
  They got busted and convicted and sentenced to jail for ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL Business Practices!
  
  Illegal? Yes. Unethical? Not in my book. They are essentially a for-profit library. The law may have a problem with that, but I don't.
  
  Are you sure? How do you know? Does Amanda support the illegal exploitation of her work, or has she just find a tactful temporary solution for HER until the problem can be addressed? I'm pretty sure Amanda does not support abolishing copyright and artists rights, but if you have a citation where she says so, I'd like to see it[.]
  
  Why, look at that.
  
  Oh, and supporting fans sharing music does not necessarily mean you want to abolish copyright, and in no case does it mean you are against artists' rights. It might help if you learned these things.
  
  Sites operating LEGALLY are not the problem.
  
  And yet, every time there's a story about artists using sites legally, you focus entirely on The Pirate Bay.
  
  For example:
  
  Because it's all part of the lie that artists are better off than they were, and they're not, not by a long shot and The Pirate Bay and other illegal and unethical businesses ripping off artists WORSE than labels are the reason why.
  
  If artists are worse off, it is not because of sites like The Pirate Bay. It is because of the shifting legal marketplace, and bad business decisions by the major labels (which unfortunately rippled down to everyone).
  
  And even if you think artists are worse off, even if you think sites like The Pirate Bay are responsible, that still doesn't explain why you feel you need to evangelize it on this story - which has absolutely nothing to do with The Pirate Bay, or sites operating illegally, or piracy in general.
  
  Amanda is successful. She used a new(ish) business model to help her become successful. She did it without having to compromise her ideals, without signing over the rights to her music. That should be celebrated. It should be inspirational.
  
  Instead, you're insulting her, derailing the conversation, and offering absolutely nothing whatsoever that would actually help any musician in the real world. Nothing.
  
  This is why I take the time to argue with you. The only thing I've ever heard you say is "it sucks nowadays, and everything new that has come along to help artists is worthless." You are the voice in every musician's head that is telling them to shut up, it's not worth it, you'll never get ahead, don't even try.
  
  In the final analysis, you are anti-success. The fact that you don't even see this is sad.
  
  If artists could actually support themselves professionally without labels, than the labels would really have to offer value to artists to remain in business
  
  Or, if the labels lose money on a string of bad business decisions, they will exploit artists even more to squeeze every last drop of income from them. Which is exactly what is happening right now.
  
  So, yes, things are probably worse for artists signed to a major label. And considering how shitty things were before, that's saying something.
  
  But the vast, vast majority of artists are not, and never would have been. They would have been locked out of the larger music industry altogether. They could not get on the radio; couldn't get their albums in retail outlets; and had no way to interact with fans on a global level. No matter how talented they were, no matter how much people would have loved their music, they were held down by a glass ceiling held in place by the majors.
  
  For those artists, things are better now than they were before. Live revenue is up; licensing revenue is up; merch sales are up. People are spending more on music now than they have at any other point in history - more than offsetting the losses in recording revenue. And the indie labels have been helped more than anyone else; they have a far larger market share than they ever had before.
  
  And there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of ways to make money that simply didn't exist before. YouTube, CD Baby, TuneCore, Kickstarter - the artists who are making money through these companies are artists who would have made no money at all under the old label system. You can even sell your tracks on iTunes or Amazon far easier than you could get your music into a record store, and they're global. Most artists will never make enough to live off of. But they're making some money, at least, where before they would have made nothing.
  
  This doesn't mean that the majors don't hold a disproportionate amount of power, which is why they still dominate the Top 40. They have been making billions for decades, and aren't going away anytime soon. That glass ceiling is still there. But it is cracking. And if you're smart enough, popular enough, and work hard enough, there's a chance you can widen those cracks.
  
  This should be celebrated. Instead, you're pushing doom-and-gloom, calling all the new opportunities "half baked ideas and lies." You take all the people who use these tools successfully, and denigrate them. Simply put, you're only telling artists how to fail. It makes me angry.
  
  And, if that were true, we would not be having this conversation.
  
  We would still be having this conversation, because you would be spouting your bullshit whether artists actually were better off or not. Exhibit A: they are, and you are.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

  

  Karl ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 02:45pm

  Artists themselves

  Personally, I agree with both Albini and Amanda. I have no problem if people share my music. (For those albums of mine that are put out on a label, I do politely ask that people respect the labels' wishes, but most of the labels I work with don't give a shit.) I don't feel like file sharing sites (including The Pirate Bay) are "ripping me off" in the slightest. Many, many other artists (most of whom are far more lucrative than I) feel the same way. Even if they don't, I have yet to meet a single artist who believes that filesharing sites are worse than major labels.
  
  Of course, that's not the way the pro-label people spin it. I give this story under an hour before that AC (who I still suspect is Lowery himself) comes here, starts spamming the thread with posts to ridiculous technophobic websites, and starts ranting on about The Pirate Bay.
  
  It's really amazing how many people who claim to be "pro-artist" don't actually listen to the artists themselves. Quite a significant amount of artists don't see file sharing as a threat at all, even when it's infringing. And those "pro-artist" AC's never fail to ignore them, downplay their independent work, or outright insult them.
  
  What's really frustrating about this whole thing is that it paints a picture of artists vs. fans. By claiming to speak for artists, all the naysayers are doing is getting people to hate artists. (Not surprising, since by and large their agenda has nothing to do with actually supporting artists, but with preserving the label system.) But the plain fact is that artists usually aren't the ones ranting about Google being pirates or filesharing being evil incarnate.
  
  There actually isn't much conflict at all between the fans (most of whom are heavy filesharers) and the artists. By creating a false dichotomy, the "piracy"-haters are doing nothing less than driving a wedge between the artists, and the fans they need for support. It's disgusting.

• On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement

  

  Karl ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 11:28am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: A new first

  At the moment there isn't one in the U.S. as far as I'm aware.
  
  There is, actually:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 06:18am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  you can't have liberty without consent.
  
  Copyright law is forcing everyone to limit their own expression, without their consent, according to the demands of copyright holders.
  
  So, I guess you're saying that copyright is against liberty. I'm not too sure I'd go that far, but OK.
  
  you are creating a false dichotomy.
  
  I am not creating any sort of dichotomy whatsoever. If anyone here is doing so, it is you. Either you're supporting the 90's-era music industry, or you're supporting The Pirate Bay. That is the epitome of a false dichotomy.
  
  and, to be clear, the pirate bay is in fact in illegal and unethical business ripping off artists for profit, they were convicted, upheld by their supreme court and are facing jail time, there's no way around those facts.
  
  They are illegal. This is true. That they are unethical means that the law is automatically ethical, merely because it is the law. That is something I'm not willing to accept.
  
  And they were not convicted of "ripping off artists." They were not convicted for stealing. They were convicted for copyright infringement. The two are not the same thing at all. Especially not in this case, where the only thing they did was slap advertisements on a site that let users trade copyrighted material noncommercially.
  
  But, you know what? If you want to believe The Pirate Bay is not just illegal, but immoral, then go for it. Your opinion is not shared by most people (or even all artists), but go ahead and believe it.
  
  Even granting this, then so what? The Pirate Bay has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda. It has absolutely nothing to do with Kickstarter. And much as you want to believe otherwise, it has absolutely nothing to do with YouTube, iTunes, Tunecore, CD Baby, or any of the immense numbers of "tech sites" that absolutely and unquestionably benefit artists.
  
  So why the hell do you feel the need to bring them up every single time Techdirt does a post about successful artists?
  
  The obvious answer is the one I said above. You are trying to create a false dichotomy. You hate any music model that's not the one from the 90's, and you bring up The Pirate Bay as a typical "tech site" in order to slander everyone.
  
  You have zero interest in helping artists. You're just arguing to spread your dystopian propaganda. It's not working, as anyone who reads these comments can see right through your bullshit.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 May, 2012 @ 07:18pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  So the pirate bay profiting from the artists work without consent or compensation is not unethical?
  
  The problem with this argument is that the Pirate Bay isn't doing this.
  
  They are offering a service to people. That service is enabling people to share digital material. That material could be infringing, or it could be non-infringing, but the Pirate Bay works exactly the same either way.
  
  They make money through advertising; it matters not one whit whether the pages that the advertising appears on are infringing or not. They're not charging for content. They're not making money on any specific content.
  
  That does not mean they're legal, of course. Obviously, they're not. Nor does it mean that they're not engaging in secondary liability for infringement. I've always said they should have obeyed takedown requests; and if they had, probably they would never have been charged in the first place.
  
  But this is hardly "ripping artists off" in the way you suggest. They don't remove any choices from artists: the artists still have the right and ability to sell their records, to charge money for performances, to engage in licensing, etc. And it's not like any artist's bank account balance declines when their records are shared. Even the notion that it causes a decline in revenue is arguable at best.
  
  But, "immoral?" No, not at all. If you think The Pirate Bay is "immoral," then you think libraries are "immoral." They're both doing essentially the same thing: allowing people to experience culture for free. The Pirate Bay is essentially doing what Jesus did in the parable of the loaves and fishes. It's just that they're doing it with culture instead of food.
  
  The idea that artists have the right to control what happens when their artwork reaches the public is not moral. It is certainly necessary; but it is a necessary evil. Confusing necessity with morality is a huge mistake, and one I'm not willing to make.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 May, 2012 @ 06:58pm

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

  Addendum:
  
  I think Amanda is a special, rare, and unique talent which is also why this model will not work for most bands who are, let's just say, less theatrical...
  
  Well, we agree about Amanda, at least.
  
  And, if you substitute "less theatrical" for "generic," then we agree completely.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 May, 2012 @ 06:54pm

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

  If Amanda has raised close to one million herself, and she's still going to be broke, I'm fairly certain it's not absurd that a label would have easily spent multiples of millions over three albums. As Amanda's own numbers indicate, it's not cheap to finance the creation of music and support it.
  
  It's expensive to make an expensive LP, art book, and tour. None of the previous records that Roadrunner did even approached this level of expense. And I doubt very much that a first-time band (even one as popular as The Dresden Dolls) managed to score over $333,333 per record as an advance. Plus, you're ignoring the fact that Amanda fronted all the recording costs of her solo record (which Roadrunner was supposed to pay back but didn't).
  
  So, even if they hadn't kept all the money from record sales - which they did - they wouldn't have spent "multiples of millions."
  
  I would suggest that you actually educate yourself.
  
  Yeah, thanks for the patronizing bullshit, but I'm pretty aware of how the music industry works, thanks. Not only did I work in it at one time (admittedly at the grunt level), but I personally know several people who were on major labels, and I also know a couple IP lawyers.
  
  Not that it makes a difference. Even if I never knew nobody in the industry, your arguments are still wrong.

• On the post: YouTube Uploads Hit 72 Hours A Minute: How Can That Ever Be Pre-Screened For 'Objectionable' Material?

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 11:17pm

  Re:

  Too big to be legal. What a wonderful defense.
  
  Well, except that they are legal. So, that's a pretty good defense. What they're trying to avoid is stupid laws that would make them illegal.
  
  Considering how much artists get paid by YouTube (hello, ContentID), and how much the major labels need to use their infrastructure (hello, Vevo), I'd say that it's in everyone's best interest to keep YouTube legal.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 06:53pm

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

  Amanda's experiment works in the same way the NIN and Radiohead experiments worked... because of all the millions of dollars in label funding that created that she didn't have to spend.
  
  This has been debunked plenty of times, but I'll humor you and do so again:
  

  And because of that decision [to sign with Roadrunner], the band did receive pockets of radio success in markets like St. Louis and Arizona. The attendance at those shows spiked in 2006 when a few Dolls songs were receiving airplay. Awesome, right? Well, now it's 2009 and we've returned to some of those markets. Many of those radio fans don't turn up anymore. Yet, the hardcores or "1000 true fans" are still there, just like they have been since they organically founded The Dresden Dolls back in the day. They still line up outside for hours, know every word of every song (whether or not it has been released), and wait around for Amanda's autograph. They don't need a top down marketing plan to tell them what to like. And who are the new hardcore Dolls/ Amanda fans? They are the younger siblings and friends of the original fans, who continue to spread the gospel about an artist who's work they love so much they can't not talk about.

  - http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/07/an-insiders-view-of-amanda-palmers-success.html
  
  And, seriously, "millions?" That's just completely absurd. The Dresden Dolls put out two records on Roadrunner; Amanda put out one (and she paid for the recording costs out-of-pocket on that one, by the way). None of them approached the packaging and artwork of this release. And as far as I know, neither Amanda nor Brian have received a single penny in royalties from any of them. So, "millions" is pretty much total bullshit.
  
  "Statistical Proof That DIY Doesn't Pay"
  
  All this says is that having a team has its advantages. That's hardly newsworthy - Amanda has a team too. And it doesn't support a single thing you're saying.
  
  Here's the thing: in order to get to the level of having a team, you're going to have to work hard to get to that level. Before the internet, the only way to do that was to hope that a label somewhere offered you a "golden ticket." Even if you got one, you were likely going to be one of the 90% of bands on a major label that was unrecouped. Which means that you got nothing from recording artists' royalties. (If you were also a songwriter, you probably also got mechanicals - at a reduced rate, thanks to controlled composition clauses.) In return, you lost the rights to your music, and often lost many of the creative aspects of your music.
  
  That worked for very few. I don't know the BLS statistics for the 1990's (they recently redesigned their site and don't make old info available anymore). But in 2010, there were 176,200 workers who were musicians and singers. The vast majority of these worked for performing arts companies (think: orchestras/theaters) or "Religious, grantmaking, civic, professional, and similar organizations." The number of musicians who worked in the "Motion picture, video, and sound recording industries" were just 0.1% of professional musicians - or, roughly 400 people. (Source [Excel file].)
  
  Unless you're one of those people, you'd be completely out of luck. But now, you can do things like a Kickstarter campaign (or IndieGoGo or Sellaband or whatever), sell stuff through CD Baby, etc.
  
  Hell, even though you made fun of Tunecore, those ~300 people who made minimum wage from that site alone looks better and better in comparison.
  
  The old system was based almost entirely on a "golden ticket" myth - the notion that if you just get discovered by a big label, you'll be a success. That, of course, was always a lie. And, if you're thinking that the newer music models are also some sort of "golden ticket," then you're going to be very disappointed.
  
  But nobody here ever said it would be. Techdirt in particular has said very vocally that there is no such thing as a "golden ticket." It has always been hard to make a living off of music. It's always been hard to even break even.
  
  But for most musicians, it's slightly easier now than it used to be. The fact that it's still immensely difficult - and that most musicians won't succeed - doesn't change that fact.
  
  Now, if you want to actually help musicians, instead of just bitching about how that damn series of tubes is vacuuming up your wallet, then you should ignore complete tripe like that Trichordist site (assuming, of course, that you're not actually David Lowery yourself). I would suggest starting with the Tunecore blog, New Music Strategies, or Hypebot. Or at least some sites that actually offer answers instead of just throwing around accusations, insults, and slander.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 04:48pm

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

  illegal exploitation of artists work without consent or compensation is the issue
  
  Actually, the issue is how all of us artists can learn from Amanda's Kickstarter campaign.
  
  You just derailed the entire conversation, like you always do.
  
  Now, go away.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 12:28pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  Like you.
  
  Incidentally, I did a little digging on this whole thing.
  
  I'm going to assume that our idiotic friend here is also the prime author of The Trichordist. I assume this because the only thing this asshole does is come here and attempt to call everyone names while puking out links to this awful, misinformed rant site.
  
  It's especially aggravating because he only posts in stories about successful musicians, dragging every one of these stories into the gutter, and totally ruining any sort of productive discussion we could ever have about these (or any other) artists. It is not just disrespectful to Techdirt, it is disrespectful to the artists themselves.
  
  Well, wouldn't you know it. After a bit of digging on Google, I found this:
  

  Hello everybody.
  
  I?m making some changes to the this blog. So for the time being I have unpublished all these posts. I?ll put them back on line as we go through them. thanks.
  
  You can also visit me at www.trichordist.com

  
  And where, precisely, did I find this?
  
  On Cracker's website.
  
  You remember Cracker, right? That's the band that is fronted by David Lowery. If you don't recall, Mike took Lowery to task for a Facebook post that hated on the "new music model," without actually making any sense whatsoever. And in return, Lowery himself came on here and acted like a douchebag, talking lawsuits, calling people "fuckface," etc.
  
  Interesting. Apparently the man just can't stop being an asshole.
  
  Maybe someone should take him bowling.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 12:05pm

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

  All well and good, but how does that factor into her Kickstarter campaign?
  
  How does it not, exactly? These are the costs to produce the very things she promised to supporters of her Kickstarter campaign.
  
  "Wasted expenses" in my view, nothing more. Personally I'm after great new music.
  
  I guess you view anything more than a blank CD labeled with a felt-tip to be "wasted expenses." Good for you. Not everyone agrees with you.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 09:38am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  For glitzy packaging and art books, not music. That's what I consider to be wasted money.
  
  I know quite a few visual artists who would vehemently disagree with you.
  
  Amanda has always been about much more than just the music. Her live shows are just as much theater as a musical performance (and in fact she's actually authored several musical plays). She is a musician first, certainly, but she's basically a multimedia artist.
  
  You can dislike her music. You can dislike the other artists whose hard work went into the other portions of this project. That's fine. But calling them all "wasted expenses" is ludicrous.
  
  Also, the "rich girl" criticism is just ridiculous. You don't need to be poor to produce good art. That is one of those ages-old myths that deserves to die.
  
  It's also not very accurate; she didn't grow up in poverty by any means, but she's not some product of wealthy nepotism, like, say, Lily Allen. She worked immensely hard for what she accomplished - and that's all that matters in this regard.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 09:14am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  99% of all tunecore artist make less than minimum wage...
  
  And in the 90's, 100% of those artists would make nothing whatsoever.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 09:13am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  ...And, once again, I got suckered into responding to a troll. I really need to cut that out.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 09:11am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  take it up with Ted Cohen and Midem...
  
  Ha ha, priceless. Here's the last paragraph of that article:
  
  

  The point of my post today is to motivate you, not to intimidate or dissuade you. The good news is that you are finally in charge of your career. The bad news is, that face in the mirror, it?s the only one to blame if things don?t go well.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 09:08am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  anyone who disagrees with TD "hive mind" must be a douchebag troll, I see.
  
  No, just people who have no intention of actually engaging in any sort of debate, and merely come here to post more links to some idiotic, hate-filled anti-tech rant blog.
  
  Like you.

• On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 09:05am

  Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

  but when labels charge $20 for it's unfair even though the label has to pay the artist from that same price.
  
  It costs significantly less than this to make a typical album. Amanda is making something far more extravagant than a CD in a standard jewel case with a 4-color 2-panel insert. Yet the labels charged $20 for those, too.
  
  but when the artist pockets all the money, without a third party, then that's fair?
  
  Yep. We support artists because they create art we like. We have no problem if they keep the profits. We have problems with people who don't create anything taking all of the money that we pay, and keeping it without paying artists anything. (And by "we," I mean people in general, not just Techdirt folks.)
  
  And please spare us the "then why do you support The Pirate Bay" bullshit that you'll inevitably spout back at us. If you could prove for one moment that The Pirate Bay actually takes money out of artists' pockets, we wouldn't support them. But they don't. They serve advertising on a site that provides a service to everyone, musicians and non-musicians alike.
  
  And please keep in mind that posting links to ignorant, hate-filled rant sites the "the trichordist" or "pop up pirates" is not proof of anything.
  
  Plus, not everyone here supports them. Myself included. I think they should have always followed the DMCA. But if they did, then I wouldn't have a problem with them at all.
  
  But even those who think they're doing things the wrong way aren't stupid enough to believe they're actually "ripping off musicians." I don't think they ever believed what they were doing actually hurt musicians at all (and they might be right), and certainly, they've recently focused specifically on ways they could help (by e.g. the Promo Bay).
  
  They are primarily ideology-driven, dedicated to an absolutist vision of free expression (of both the "free beer" and "free speech" varieties). And that is something that even professional artists can get behind. Whatever the Pirate Bay's flaws (and there are many), they're doing something that is fundamentally good for society, and everyone knows it (artists included).
  
  And this is the problem. It is certainly possible to criticize the Pirate Bay. But because the major labels are so much worse for artists, and have the political clout to push through laws that are horrifying for all of society, that The Pirate Bay looks like angels in comparison. Big Media has made it a "you're either with us, or you're with the Pirate Bay" situation. It's no surprise that most people (and many artists) side with the Pirate Bay.
  
  Incidentally, you're doing exactly the same thing if you use The Pirate Bay and "the tech industry" in the same sentence.

Next >>