how-to block ads
|
| page: 1 · 2 · 3  |
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Kaltes
Re: Very nice of them!
said by Kaltes  :
No swede what YOU are doing is taking my language and stretching it to an absurd extreme. No one ever claimed "the cultured, mature, museum folks" were saints, only that they would be a bit more likely to give anonymous donations than a young teenager.
If you don't believe that there is such a thing as 'maturity' and that older persons have more of it on average than younger persons, then I don't know what to tell you. Maturity is not the same as morality.
Of course ultimately everyone is 'selfish' but this is not a white/black issue, it is a spectrum, with some people being blatantly selfish in a way that harms others, some dedicating their lives to helping others and living in poverty because it makes them feel like a good person, and everything in between.
You cannot apply your black and white outlook to something as complex and spectrum-based as someone's degree of consideration for others. If you try (and you did) you arrive at absurd conclusions such as trying to twist my language into a good versus evil morality debate.
Slow down there. No need to yell "YOU" at anyone. And my black and white outlook? Read your first post, Kaltes. Did you paint any group with a broad brush? With your statements, did you perhaps make something a bit more black and white than it actually is?
I did not equate maturity to morality. You did by linking maturity with selflessness (a moral issue), and that's the issue I have with your statements. You stated:
but this is just a maturity issue that will change with time as they grow up and become less self-centered. (italics mine)
This is simply not true.
I have no argument with the fact that gaining more experience (which includes just getting older) creates more maturity. I just disagree with the statement you made above that equates maturity with selflessness.
--
Cable Cable Cable...keep that cable rolling. | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to TheMadSwede
No swede what YOU are doing is taking my language and stretching it to an absurd extreme. No one ever claimed "the cultured, mature, museum folks" were saints, only that they would be a bit more likely to give anonymous donations than a young teenager.
If you don't believe that there is such a thing as 'maturity' and that older persons have more of it on average than younger persons, then I don't know what to tell you. Maturity is not the same as morality.
Of course ultimately everyone is 'selfish' but this is not a white/black issue, it is a spectrum, with some people being blatantly selfish in a way that harms others, some dedicating their lives to helping others and living in poverty because it makes them feel like a good person, and everything in between.
You cannot apply your black and white outlook to something as complex and spectrum-based as someone's degree of consideration for others. If you try (and you did) you arrive at absurd conclusions such as trying to twist my language into a good versus evil morality debate. | |
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Kaltes
Sure getting older makes people less self-centered. Whatever. That's ridiculous. People are people, regardless of their age, which means they are all self-centered. The only thing that age is guaranteed to bring is experience, which can be a good thing...or a bad thing.
You see, you're coming too close to equating age to morality, which doesn't work. So, 13-year-old Danny steals music off the internet. And 57-year-old Daniel lays off 600 workers and keeps an 8-digit bonus for himself, and gives the museum a hundred thousand dollars.
Both are self-centered.
But hurray for the cultured, mature, museum folks. Ridiculous.
--
Cable Cable Cable...keep that cable rolling. | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to pianotech
consider it buried
as for people having honor, I think the more correct way to put it is: maturity.
anyone ever see that simpsons episode where Homer takes Lisa to the museum, and Homer sees that entry is not fee based but donations are encouraged, so he laughs and tells everyone that comes "Hey! You don't HAVE to pay!" Of course a more respectable character shows up next and pays double to make up for Homer.
you see, the crowd that goes to museums don't have to be forced to pay. I think people who like classical instrumental music are a bit more like the museum crowd than the stereotypical p2p crowd. (basically they're just older)
Sure some 13 year olds might be a fan of someone yet they still refuse to pay for anything unless absolutely required to, but this is just a maturity issue that will change with time as they grow up and become less self-centered. | |
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| reply to Kaltes
Kaltes,
I admit I took a very militant stance and most likely irritated a bunch of people. Look, I learned a lot of things in the process and can admit where and when I was wrong. I still have reservations, and still don't think much of people who are in it solely for themselves, but many people share that more reasonable view. Yeah, we locked horns..:) Water under the bridge, dontcha think? I'm willing to bury the past if you are. 
And yes, I agree with what you said about PayPal, etc.. but right now it's really my best option until something better comes along. Merchant accounts are expensive, and I can't possibly justify it just yet. FWIW, I earned $1.50 today that I didn't earn yesterday.
Ravital,
Thanks, man...hey, the old way sure wasn't working, so trying something new is in order. As I said, we'll see what happens. Never know unless you try!
--
Independent Composer & Pianist.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-02 17:26:19] | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to pianotech
said by pianotech :
Honor system based on the trust that people who are not treated like criminals (DRM, etc) will do the right thing.
Pianotech, you are a very brave soul. I wish you good luck with this.
I'll wager you stand a better chance if you put a note on it identifying yourself as an independent with an independent (or non-RIAA affiliated) label.
I would love to see what results you get from that log, but of course that would be your private business, so whether you choose to share that info with anyone here or privately is entirely your privilege.
If nothing else you deserve respect for trying something that may change (or not) your outlook completely.
With that said, I don't want to predict gloom and doom, but in the end, you know that there are far too many people out there without honor (well, that sounds better in the original Klingon). Maybe more accurately, too young to know what honor is. They'll learn.
Best of luck and warmest regards | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to pianotech
""Server logs will show me an accurate downloads to donations ratio, and I'll see how it works out.""
- Make sure you make it easy for them to donate. While many people might be more than happy enough to donate, they definately won't want to go through the hassle of singing up for new services or handing over credit card numbers just to donate 50 cents. Paypal is a good easy way to pay, but not everyone has an account there. This is why micropayments, which have been touted as a way to save web-based companies (especially all the ones that went under after the dot com bust) does not really work in practice. You would need a button that let everyone donate quickly and easily with very low transaction costs in time and money. Sadly that does not exist, though paypal comes close as long as the bulk of your audience members actually have paypal accounts.
If you used paypal for example, the true donation percentage would not be (donations/downloads) it would be (donations/unique downloads who have a paypal account). You might be able to ask a simple "Do you have a paypal account? yes/no" in the form of a poll when someone clicks to download, which could give you more accurate numbers. | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to pianotech
Pianotech, I hardly regard everyone who disagrees with me as a troll, but I have to wonder what you were thinking when you posted this:
»Anyone mind if I steal your stuff?
I mean, that type of post does little but inflame people and provoke them to flame you. That is the very definition of trolling. I have been reasonable with you in posts for quite a while. In this topic I was a little harsh because at first glance I thought you were up to your old tricks, though I am pleasantly suprised that you have left that behind and are willing to look at the subject with an open mind.
""it happens and is not at all unusual.""
Once people are a zealously committed to one side as you once appeared to be, it is in fact an extraordinarily rare occurance to see someone actually look at the issue with an open mind. I think early on you just thought the BBR boards were full of rabid p2p fans, and after posting for a while you saw that quite a few reasonable people disagreed with you without conforming to the rabid selfish screw-the-artist-and-his-little-dog-too attitude that you probably thought everyone here had when you first started posting. 
Personally, for me, it is an issue of bargaining power. If you let copyright holders have absolute control over their works, they can hide the ball from consumers, either not allowing people to preview their music or only offering up the best few tracks to sell their CD. MANY people go out and buy CDs based on hearing 1 hit song that is on the radio all the time, then say "gee all the other songs on here suck, what a waste of money this was" but it is too late: no returns. IMHO the music industry gets a HUGE amount of money by tapping into compulsive buying and getting people to lay down cold cash when they don't really know whether they like a particular group or not. The result is innumerable CDs which are bought, listened to briefly, then retired to the massive CD case and never touched again. That is not economically efficient. I would much rather CDs be close to free, used as a promotional tool to aquire fans rather than as a dedicated revenue stream. As for actually making the money, once you aquire fans you need to give them what they want: merchandise and concerts if possible. Once the music industry is supported by fans once again instead of fickle consumers with more money than they know what to do with (who are in short supply anyway given the current economy), you will see the emphasis of success shifting from marketing power (all those ads that hype up the CD so fickle consumers buy it) to actual quality music.
Look at all the 1 hit wonders within the last 10 years, that just shows you that everyone got tricked into buying the groups 1st CD, but didnt like them enough to even think about buying CD #2. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me......
Donations might work, but what you really need is the business savvy to capture all that cash your fans want to pay you. Once you rely on fan money instead of cash from the aloof masses, you can go about putting in effort to create fans. Perhaps an online web-based membership service where fans pay a monthly or annual fee in exchange for exclusive (or just see-before-everyone-else) content? Merchandise is always good too, especially if you choose the right items to cater to your audience. Tshirts are a good catch-all to start out with. Many other web-based businesses, like homestarrunner.com, have become popular by providing free content, then offering merchandise so their fans can provide the revenue stream. | |
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| reply to Kaltes
Kaltes,
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, and not every opinion that differs from yours is unjustified. Nuff said.
Everyone else,
Because of the efforts of people like Fireside, Transmaster, Ravital, and numerous others who know who they are, I have done a 180 in many of my previous ideas about p2p. People can and do change their mind...call it intellectual growth, evolution, or simply changing one's mind, it happens and is not at all unusual.
So off I go on a new tack...releasing music digitally directly to the consumer in mp3 format, along with a donation button and request for .50/song if someone chooses to keep the song(s). Honor system based on the trust that people who are not treated like criminals (DRM, etc) will do the right thing. Server logs will show me an accurate downloads to donations ratio, and I'll see how it works out.
Sincere thanks to all who are capable of debating civilly.
--
Independent Composer & Pianist. | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to SRFireside
""On the contrary. I have vigorously debated with 'Tech regarding this issue""
- No offense but you know even less than he does when it comes to copyright. I am pretty sure I read a post from you claiming that copying that is not for commercial gain is fair use. If you read the statute, that is obviously wrong. If I have you confused with someone else, I apologize.
""see where Pianotech goes with his statements and responses""
- Scarcely a month or two ago he was laying into p2pers as thieves and making such ignorant statements as comparing the downloading of a song online to the theft of bread. He also repeatedly posted using theft/thieves/stealing in lieu of the correct words infringement/infringer/infringing even after having been explained the difference. That left the impression in my mind that he was a troll, and when I saw him popping up again I dealt with him as I would a troll. To be honest I still believe he initially came to troll, and that he has changed in the last 2 months, softening his views towards p2p. My posts earlier in this thread were directed to his earlier troll incarnation, and only later did I go back and look over some past threads to see that his views have indeed changed. He is more reasonable now, though his unjustified convictions regarding p2p run deep and he still has a long way to go. Just recently he swore off BBR boards because he thinks there boards are strongly biased in favor of p2p. Gee, I wonder if it could possibly be true that the crowd here is simply more sophisticated than laypersons who parrot whatever the latest RIAA commercial said. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and people on these boards are just a little bit better at getting through all the BS than average.
""Sure, that might not be enough facts for you to conclude P2P damaged his sales. As a matter of fact I agree.""
- I doubt his sales are high enough or steady enough to provide a reliable baseline from which to measure that his 'sales slipped'. Anyone whose sales are low enough to notice an increase due to activity on the BBR boards is not selling enough to be able to say that their sales 'slipped'.
- Given the chaotic and easily-influenced nature of his sales, one can hardly reasonably draw the conclusion that any dips in sales could be attributed to any one source, unless his buyers were comprised of a community he was in touch with who could be directly asked as to why their buying habits might have changed. The answer could be any one of a hundred things, with the most obvious being "I already have your CD, you mean you want me to buy it twice??" and "I really didn't like it enough to buy it, sorry".
- Finding his music shared online doesn't mean it has been downloaded even once. After all, to find the file you'd have to search for it, and he is not exactly widely-known enough (if at all) to inspire the masses to seek out his works on p2p.
- I strongly doubt that the teen demographic figures prominently among those who purchase his music. The notion that the grubby teen p2per stereotype would be all that interested in his music, especially enough to pay, is not all that believable.
""Where do you see this "selective reasoning"? Where is the logic in your statement?""
- Selectively reasonable means that a person chooses to respond and debate reasonably only to a portion of your arguments/points.
""But Pianotech is the one who experienced it and his views come from that experience. That's more than most anti-P2P users can say around here.""
- This is my very point: pianotech has NO EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER THAT ENABLES HIM TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS BEYOND ANYONE ELSE ON THESE BOARDS. There. You see, he THINKS he sees a relationship between p2p and his success yet does not have one whit of evidence to justify his convictions. Pianotech has nothing new to offer the debate save his own fearful reservations about a technology which he has scape-goated for any possible decline in his sales.
""BTW 'Tech's only real stance regarding P2P is that most people who use it don't support the artist and are only in it for themselves.""
- How would he know? He couldn't possibly know. This is just another one of his unjustified opinions, or 'hunches' in other words. Personally every last person I know who uses p2p has continued to buy music, in many cases seeking out less-well-known bands because they were exposed to music they liked through fleeting exposure, and were then able to identify the music online and download it. Of course if they like the music they become fans, and once they become fans they (like all true fans) want to support the artist(s) and they spend money on everything from CDs to merchandise to concerts. I know of at least 2 simpsons episodes which have caused friends on mine to become fans of some group that had their song played in the background of the episode. What if someone hears his music on that PBS special, and they like it so much they turn to p2p to download it. Of course piano would rather them pay for it all up front after only sapling a small portion of his total work, but what piano doesnt know is that if someone downloads his music and truly likes it enough to become a fan, not only will that person spend money in a show of appreciation, but that newly christened fan will also tell all their friends about how great his music is. Now does this mean that EVERYONE behaves like my friends no? Of course not, clearly SOME people do download music instead of buying it. To believe that consumers are conspiring to screw artists out of fair compensation is both a reflection of a bitterly selfish appraisal of social values, and is contradicted by the weight of what evidence does exist. The real question is: are the sales that are truly lost because of p2p greater in value than the sales that owe their origin to p2p? No one has the answer to that question, just as noone knew for sure whether the VCR would destroy the movie industry. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :
since pianotech is only selectively reasonable (i.e. he will debate in good faith only as long as you don't challenge his bias), one cannot attempt to win HIM over in a debate, one can only ridicule his position so that 3rd parties can see its weakness.
On the contrary. I have vigorously debated with 'Tech regarding this issue and know exactly where his reasoning comes from as well as his methods of debate on this issue. Know thy enemy I always say . In any case I suggest you go through all the threads on this particular topic and see where Pianotech goes with his statements and responses. Just because you may hit a brick wall with him doesn't mean everybody does.
Flaming (which is essentially what you are talking about) is hardly a valid approach. Spatting insults is more the road someone goes when they can't argue their position in a strong enough way. It's better to take an opponent head on and state your views logically and challenge the views they have that you oppose.
Where do you see this "selective reasoning"? Where is the logic in your statement? You give no examples or make no point to back up your claim. So that statement pretty much is hung out to dry with no support.
As for your comments on 'tech's whole P2P experience keep in mind this is someone who invested a lot of money on a project and saw a few points:
- He found his music being downloaded or shared online. Asked the kid about it and the kid gives an aloof response.
- During that same time, along with maybe some more examples of his music being traded, his CD sales slipped.
Sure, that might not be enough facts for you to conclude P2P damaged his sales. As a matter of fact I agree. But Pianotech is the one who experienced it and his views come from that experience. That's more than most anti-P2P users can say around here. If you were severely beaten up and tormented by a gang of circus clowns don't you think your view of circus clowns would be a lot more dim than the rest of us?
BTW 'Tech's only real stance regarding P2P is that most people who use it don't support the artist and are only in it for themselves. If you have been following the threads you might actually have seen at least a minor change in Pianotech's views. Doesn't sound like being selectively reasonable when someone rethinks their whole stance on P2P.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to pianotech
since pianotech is only selectively reasonable (i.e. he will debate in good faith only as long as you don't challenge his bias), one cannot attempt to win HIM over in a debate, one can only ridicule his position so that 3rd parties can see its weakness.
As for the quality of his music, I think it is quite good, though the point I have been trying to hammer in for some time now is that he is not popular enough to have his music copied on any significant level on p2p networks. It does not matter if he finds his songs available sometimes, because that does not mean anyone actually downloads his songs, it just means that the person sharing probably shares all their music, even their *gasp* legally-purchased music.
So his notion that *HE* is getting somehow hit in the pocketbook because of software like kazaa, is simply ludicrous.
Now that several BBR users have paid for his music, he will probably find more of his music on p2p, since those same BBR users will have their music folders shared. Does that mean anyone will copy his songs? Probably not, after all, who would even know his name to be able to search for it?
[text was edited by author 2003-08-01 22:23:15] | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | reply to pianotech
PBS soundtrack
I sure hope you have enough written to make for a CD.
The Narada label is one that retails a number of recent
PBS programs.
--
low Brass Rules! | |
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| reply to Transmaster
Re: Very nice of them!
Transmaster,
Heh...that kind of stuff doesn't affect me. When someone can't make a point without insulting, or when someone finds it necessary to attack the person behind the post instead of the post itself, I usually ignore it and move on.
Thanks for the comments about the music and also for the links, which I will definitely be sending out. In the meantime, the writing for the PBS deal is going well, and I hope to have it complete by mid-September.
--
Music for a rainy day...
[text was edited by author 2003-07-31 07:29:04] | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to Kaltes
RE: Hey piano, it is about time you just admitted that you aren't all that great and stopped blaming your lack of success on everyone else. This is called 'denial'. Get help
What an insult. have you gone to mp3.com and listened to Pianotech efforts. I to am one of those "musicians". I have
listened to the genera Pianotech plays on these MP3 streams
for over 25 years. His stuff is as good as anything available on the Narada, Windimhill, or Hearts of Space labels. Let me let you in on a little secret. Not all types of music have a wide enough audience to attract a lot of sales. Most musician playing in this style do commercial work to pay the bills. Try being a world class euphonium soloist (I wish). You might have a beautiful Boosey & Hawkes instrument, girls swoon when they hear one of your credenzas, but unless you do some else for a living you will be living in a car between concerts.
By the way Painotech have you ever submitted disks to "Music from The Hearts of Space", »www.hos.com/radio.html or "Musical Star Streams" »www.starstreams.com/ - you might be able to get some air time.
--
low Brass Rules!
[text was edited by author 2003-07-31 02:25:15]
[text was edited by author 2003-07-31 02:47:14] | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to petecellar
said by petecellar :
For what it's worth, there is a LOT of Jazz and Classical on P2P.
Well, that's news to me, and I appreciate the tip. | |
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to pianotech
said by pianotech :
I understand what you're saying, but practically speaking, the labels had (still have, in many ways) complete control over distribution. Without them you didn't have a chance. Yes, the artists signed the labels and had to know what they were getting into, but I'm sure there was a decent share of the proverbial carrot-dangling in front of them too.
Agreed. It is one of "those things", as they say.
The only reason I said that is because I think it is important that everyone keep a realistic approach to this issue. Too many people just want to bash the RIAA; and while most of it is warranted, some folks just bash because they've grown used to doing it.
Many professions, few so glamorous as musician, place folks in a similar predicament.
For instance, taxi driver. Most major metropolitan areas require "medallions" (licenses) for a cab to be legal in the most congested areas (like Wall Street or 5th ave or Chicago's Loop / Michigan Ave). For a regular sedan, these often cost over $250,000 per vehicle. So while there is no rule preventing an independent operator from having his own cab, every driver pretty much has to join a company in order to be able to afford it. (And in some cases they are then indebted to the company.)
However, in outlying areas, the medallions are often cheaper, allowing an operator to get into the business. They aren't in a high impact area where they can make tons of money on a consistent basis, but at least they get into the business. So they get paid - just not as much as potential might indicate.
Now, I know driving a taxi is different than playing music. And I've simplified the whole licensing process. But it's an interesting comparison.
--
Cable Cable Cable...keep that cable rolling. | |
puritan
@63.99.x.x
| reply to pianotech
I equate the music industry to wrestling. And the RIAA is the management. They are the kings of the promotion and distribution. If they want you to be big, they will market you to be big. Yeah, there is some requirement of the people to accept the bands that they promote. That is why you are seeing so many of these manufactured groups that end up failing. But at first, they are said to be the hottest thing around. People buy into it.
In wrestling, they write out the story to play the emotions of the people. They already know who is going to win, but they market the show as though they don't. It is all about selling the show, even though 80% is fluff without action. And unless you are affiliated with the WWE, you are pretty much a nobody.
Music is very much the same. Market to your target audience. Sell them on the best parts of the album, or concert, or whatever, and hope that too many people aren't disappointed with the rest. And unless you are affiliated with the RIAA, you are pretty much a nobody.
Some artists see the RIAA as their only shot for real fame. And this is why they sign. The RIAA is merely a legal monopoly on the marketing and sales of music.
puritan | |
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| reply to TheMadSwede
I understand what you're saying, but practically speaking, the labels had (still have, in many ways) complete control over distribution. Without them you didn't have a chance. Yes, the artists signed the labels and had to know what they were getting into, but I'm sure there was a decent share of the proverbial carrot-dangling in front of them too.
--
Music for a rainy day... | |
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to pianotech
said by pianotech :
Speaking of the RIAA screwing artists, you all know how Buddy Holly was killed in a plane crash...but did you know why he was in the plane in the first place? Because he was broke and had to do the Winter Dance Party to support himself and his new bride. The kicker...he already had a string of top-10 hits, his label had made millions...and he was still broke! So the rest is history...charter a cheap private plane, organize a tour, and blam.
Same with Jim Croce. Though he had two platinum albums and a string of top-10 hits in the 70's, he also was broke. ABC Records had already made millions, but not a cent of it had been distributed to him yet. Same circumstances as with Holly, he put together a tour as cheaply as he could since he couldn't afford better, chartered a cheap, rickety private plane, ...end of Croce.
Just two examples of the recording industry ripping off established, prestigious, profitable acts. There are many more, I'm sure.
I'm definitely not a RIAA fan. But don't blame the lables for creating contracts that benefit only themselves, because a contract needs to be signed by both parties to be valid.
So if someone signs a crappy contract, they should not complain that it's crappy -- because they signed it. If they didn't read what they signed, shame on them. If they read it and liked the potential for a lot of money, but ignored the possible downsides, then double shame on them.
If artists (and I use the term loosely) don't like labels, they should not sign with a label. It's harder to get "screwed over" if you haven't signed on the dotted line for anyone.
--
Cable Cable Cable...keep that cable rolling. | |
|
