- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is it ok to steal media?
Posted on 11/26/12 at 1:58 pm to Freauxzen
Posted on 11/26/12 at 1:58 pm to Freauxzen
While I do agree with that Oatmeal (if you don't offer your content legally, people will steal it -- "you can't stop the signal"), I do think there is a real troubling problem with consumers. We've been trained by IT companies like Google and Apple that content is supposed to be free, or close to it. For companies that will sue the ever-living shite out of anyone who encroached on their IP, they have no problem with encouraging consumers to steal the IP of "content producers", or as I like to call them, "the people who actually write this shite."
The IT companies have destroyed musicians. It is now almost literally impossible to make a living at being a musician in our current economic structure. Spotify nets musicians next to nothing. iTunes is slightly better, but the streaming sites get around standard usage rates. As much as the record companies screwed over artists over the years, it is nothing compared to what IT companies have done t them. People pretty much don't expect artists to get paid for their creations.
It's wrong. Everyone gets rich but the person who actually makes the stuff. Eventually, this means they'll stop making this stuff. We are trying to morally justify not paying people who actually create things.
The IT companies have destroyed musicians. It is now almost literally impossible to make a living at being a musician in our current economic structure. Spotify nets musicians next to nothing. iTunes is slightly better, but the streaming sites get around standard usage rates. As much as the record companies screwed over artists over the years, it is nothing compared to what IT companies have done t them. People pretty much don't expect artists to get paid for their creations.
It's wrong. Everyone gets rich but the person who actually makes the stuff. Eventually, this means they'll stop making this stuff. We are trying to morally justify not paying people who actually create things.
2
Posted on 11/26/12 at 2:06 pm to Baloo
quote:
The IT companies have destroyed musicians. It is now almost literally impossible to make a living at being a musician in our current economic structure. Spotify nets musicians next to nothing. iTunes is slightly better, but the streaming sites get around standard usage rates. As much as the record companies screwed over artists over the years, it is nothing compared to what IT companies have done t them. People pretty much don't expect artists to get paid for their creations.
Playing live is where they can make it up. The situation with movies and TV is more interesting, as there is no way to make it up other than to charge for the recorded product.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 3:43 pm to Baloo
quote:
While I do agree with that Oatmeal (if you don't offer your content legally, people will steal it -- "you can't stop the signal"), I do think there is a real troubling problem with consumers. We've been trained by IT companies like Google and Apple that content is supposed to be free, or close to it. For companies that will sue the ever-living shite out of anyone who encroached on their IP, they have no problem with encouraging consumers to steal the IP of "content producers", or as I like to call them, "the people who actually write this shite."
The IT companies have destroyed musicians. It is now almost literally impossible to make a living at being a musician in our current economic structure. Spotify nets musicians next to nothing. iTunes is slightly better, but the streaming sites get around standard usage rates. As much as the record companies screwed over artists over the years, it is nothing compared to what IT companies have done t them. People pretty much don't expect artists to get paid for their creations.
It's wrong. Everyone gets rich but the person who actually makes the stuff. Eventually, this means they'll stop making this stuff. We are trying to morally justify not paying people who actually create things.
Two questions:
1) But who decides cost? It's a core business principal that is thrown into chaos because of both the internet and the idea of "media" in the first place. Cost is negotiated between the consumer and producer (in most non-subsidized instances).
I don't think it's Google, Apple, and IT folks devaluing media products. I think it's the market deciding that bubble gum pop is now worth as much as bubble gum. Whether that's a good thing or not, I think you and I agree on, isn't the question at hand.
The better question is: How do we bring value to media products. That's exactly what the 3D movement is about, bringing more value. That's not the answer, seemingly, so what is?
2) Then, isn't up to the producer to figure out how to make money in such a market? I know telling Trent Reznor and Radiohead that is easy, not so much for The Thrills, The Spinto Band or Bear vs. Shark.
The problem is that "media" is generally tied to the arbitrary realm of emotion. There's a reason that a Nissan Sentra and a BMW have a cost difference. We can't say the same about Dr. Dog and Justin Bieber.
We are trying to price and value esoteric ideas of worth, that's a problem I admit. And now it's impossible to regulate.
This post was edited on 11/26/12 at 3:48 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News