Not necessarily all artists, but a few, certainly (Metallica is the biggest).
Okay, that that you quoted is a stupid assertion, in my opinion. However, it will be forced to change by basic economic Darwinism.
Whoosh.
Open source allows people in to help share. Copyright still applies, but the fact the people can see where it might not need to apply is a salient point to the discussion.
We teach three-year-olds to share. WE then tell tham that they can go to jail for sharing. See the problem?
Being a musician is a job, a vocation: it might also ba a hobby, but to do well, you have to work at it, just like any other job.
Queen is actually a wonderful case study: they did things that no-one at the time thought reasonable in pursuit of fans: they went to South Amnerica when it was mostly ruled by juntas and dictatorships: they went to South Africa in Apartheid times; they were written off more than five times as just being a fad.
And yet they made more money than just about any artist ever for their labels and themselves. They weren't the longet-lived band, but they had a business-savvy manager and team around them. And THAT is what labels can provide. The current model cannot continue, lest they all die.
But copyright has risen far more in the last 15 years than in any other period before it. It's getting to the point where people are laughing at copyright as a rpivilege that, in the age of near-instant communications, people are asking for things sooner, and the "windows" of releases are NOT WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY'S FAVOUR. So perhaps, instead of legislating, they should innovate.
Lies and deception. Not hard to discover that.
Alas, youi may have a point: certain commenters who remain anonymous keep attempting to dehumanise Mike (and by extension, Techdirt) over seeming not wantint mnusicians to get paid.
And yet, time and again, the RIAA and its ilk are now regularly being sued over unpaid royalties (for example, the CRIA was successfully sued for unpaid royalties in a class-action suit).
Yes, there is a bias here, but I'm pretty sure it's less extreme than "You're all fucking sociopaths who have no empathy for the plight of starving artists everywhere!" In that regard, I have news for you: name me one other industry that gets paid over and over again for the same work 30, 40, even 60 years down the line, outside of entertainment industries. My hunch is that, you can't.
The funny thing isa...we, the public, literally are not permitted to access any methodologies used in those studies. So that makes a good nunmber of people suspicious. At the very minimum, the **AA's numbers are misleading, and at worst, oputright lies.
You cannot claim four times the US Debt as losses from a single company when your entire operations only make around $15bn (RIAA's figures to the SEC, 2010.) Moreover, if your business model is seemingly failing, then the answer is really simple: change your business model.
And I have called Mike out when I've thought he was genuinely wrong on at least three occasions, and I know that a number of other regular commenters disagree with Mike on a number of things: however, when people call Mike a lying sociopath and a slimeball over seemingly innocuous things, and then misleading the discussion over an artist's opinion of seemingly open-and-shut copyright infringement.
You're under the mistaken assertion that the information isn't already available in one form or another. True anonymity in the Internet age is a myth, and one parroted out by those who do not understand it.
For example, Googling my own full name gives me two more famous people for a large nunmber of hits before I can fine anything on me. But that doesn't mean I'm hidden.
Well, it'd be a damn sight simpler than it is now. And that would be because of economic Darwinism, rather than oligopolistic measures.
Not copying, adapting. Everything is a remix of a remix of a remix.
Can't work. Governments will eat me.
You've been reading The Onion again, haven't you?
WEll, to be fair, the Uk has been struggling for democracy since well, before the Internet came along.
"Found"? You don't Lfind things in west Hollywood: they just happen in the vicinity of, well, anything.
Sure. But then, that does explain why we need at least five treaties that say basically the same damned things.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, in that case, it's pretty clearly a contributing factor: I doubt you have any fucking clue how even a simple court case can take a toll on a person, psychologically speaking.