• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Pirate Party UK

arg-fallbackName="Shapeshifter"/>
Tsunamie said:
Instead of corporations creating technology, small start-ups will be able to start creating technology from the information pool that is available.
How exactly is this supposed to work? I can tell you how it works at the moment: If ever someone comes up with a new idea and forms a start-up, they will need two things: resources and capabilities. If they lack capabilities, they will license them from "corporations" as you call them (e.g. proprietary software, algorithms, chemicals...), and if they lack ressources, they will look for investors. Now for the investors to provide money, they will need a return. Of course they will only give money to start-ups which deserve it because their ideas are promising.

Now back to my question, how is this actually going to work, that "small start-ups will be able to start creating technology from the information pool that is available". You can't create technology without a solid financial support from investors. How will investors give you money, when the things you create will be taken away from you?

Another example: Th1sWasATriumph enlightened me about the fact that studio recordings for music are expensive. To be able to record music, you need a financial basis. Who do you think is going to pay for these studio recordings?

It seems to me like you have the idealistic view that "the state" will pay for all these things. The state is supposed to finance research, art, culture, technology, basically anything innovative in our society. Yeah well, this might work, but only if you raise the taxes to like 90% and with capable people in your government. And then you will still have the problem of assessing who gets the money and who doesn't. Capitalism does quite a good job at giving money to those innovative start-ups who deserve it.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Shapeshifter said:
It seems to me like you have the idealistic view that "the state" will pay for all these things. The state is supposed to finance research, art, culture, technology, basically anything innovative in our society. Yeah well, this might work, but only if you raise the taxes to like 90% and with capable people in your government. And then you will still have the problem of assessing who gets the money and who doesn't. Capitalism does quite a good job at giving money to those innovative start-ups who deserve it.
Here's a question: how does the government pay for ANYTHING, in a society where greedy do-nothings don't have to pay for anything? No sales taxes, no income taxes from people who actually create things, no corporate taxes because the corporations go out of business.

A really dumb answer comes from the "Pirate Party" children themselves: we'll go back in time!!
We dispute claims that copyright is a necessary basis for cultural development.
We point to the works of composers like Handel and Mendelssohn; to writers like
Dickens and Shakespeare; and to the rise of free software as evidence that
copyright is not a necessary foundation for artistic and commercial
advancement in any age.
Notice how they had to go back as far as the 16th Century for their examples, and nothing from the past 50 years, while ignoring that pretty much no one is actually paying their rent by producing free software. I guess creative people will have to find patrons or marry into money... and do you really think that the patrons are going to want to pay for anything if they can't turn around and sell it?


I'd actually have more respect for the Pirate Party if they wore eyepatches and dead parrots on their shoulders and said "Arrgh!" a lot while drinking in pubs and sailing on the weekends. That would be less stupid and to-the-bone ignorant than the actual Pirate Party. :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
ahdkaw said:
Maybe you should contextualise better then.

What does that even mean? You had a go at Joe without realising that he's completely correct; reforming or restructuring something effectively results in the abolishment in the old form or structure. You seem to enjoy latching onto small details.
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Shapeshifter said:
How exactly is this supposed to work? I can tell you how it works at the moment: If ever someone comes up with a new idea and forms a start-up, they will need two things: resources and capabilities. If they lack capabilities, they will license them from "corporations" as you call them (e.g. proprietary software, algorithms, cg chemicals...), and if they lack ressources, they will look for investors. Now for the investors to provide money, they will need a return. Of course they will only give money to start-ups which deserve it because their ideas are promising.

1>To start the current issue that a lot of academics understand is that the patent process prevents small start ups from occurring due to the licensing issue that occurs. The Price is either to high and the small start up fails unless there is no requirement for a royalty to be paid. With ever more restrictive laws being put in place by people that hold a lot of copyright and patents we all lose out.

2>Your still thinking of a system that requires investors (free market models) that gain something for having a share in the start ups. It's true that a lot of the models move this responsibility into the government domain. However the American, French and British government are already doing this.

Obama's> Technology road map see government loans to start up companies in the clean energy industry.
Browns > Job Road map sees investment in engineering/science based education roles. More R&D jobs as well as supporting more government funded initiatives in R&D.
Sarcosy> Is more socialist than Britain so they have gone quiet a bit further considering government loans subsidization into new technology based companies as well as government R&D facilities.

No matter how you look at it this point is irrelevant since the cost issue created by copyright and patent law's is already causing government to have to subsidize the cost. Which ultimately the intellectual material is owned by the government which hypothetically means it's owned by all the citizens of the nation.
Shapeshifter said:
Now back to my question, how is this actually going to work, that "small start-ups will be able to start creating technology from the information pool that is available". You can't create technology without a solid financial support from investors. How will investors give you money, when the things you create will be taken away from you?

Again, you assume a complete free market scenario. As explained above a lot of the technology based improvements are already moving to government subsidization.
Shapeshifter said:
Another example: Th1sWasATriumph enlightened me about the fact that studio recordings for music are expensive. To be able to record music, you need a financial basis. Who do you think is going to pay for these studio recordings?

1> I see several ways out for WasATriumph. Join on the the musician communion's that have created low costs sound/ audio studio's. The technology and software can be gerry rigged by tech savy individuals. (This only seems to have occurred here in Europe from what I understand. I am unaware of this being done in America)
2> Get copyright abolished completely and have his music free flow around the world. Then setup gig's and appearances and make money of the live shows. The investment models still work for live shows as the artist is the product and not the CD's someone else makes.
3> There are other models, I can't list them all since I want to keep the posts as readable as possible. However you get the idea with the first two. Knowledge was used to get around these situation. Knowledge that was freely available on the net.

It
Shapeshifter said:
seems to me like you have the idealistic view that "the state" will pay for all these things. The state is supposed to finance research, art, culture, technology, basically anything innovative in our society. Yeah well, this might work, but only if you raise the taxes to like 90% and with capable people in your government. And then you will still have the problem of assessing who gets the money and who doesn't. Capitalism does quite a good job at giving money to those innovative start-ups who deserve it.

I agree that I have a very idealistic system which required 2 major laws to be abolished. Several other laws to be reformed to prevent the abuse of such a system.

What I disagree with is "the state will pay for all these things" statement. I disagree with this position because they are not. I will demonstrate below how different models can work with out state intervention and allow "free market" to work in several cases. What I want to to remove a greed driven free market from key industries from global economies that can hurt billions because of the mistakes of the greedy few.

So to specialize -

Culture, art, Art is a section of culture and as demonstrated in previous posts. This will thrive in a no copyright system. The only difference is artists themselves get the reward directly while creating even more jobs that would normally exist under a system with copyright.

Example,
Musicians -
small time artist puts his song on line and gets distributed via hyper distribution routes. Two scenario's occur, artists is not liked. This only means less people turn up to his gig's. If the artist is liked, the artist holds a gig and gets the reward from it. Investors are still needed to an extent to fund large gig's. Say an average ticket for a London gig is ,£45-60. The crowed is generally 1k-20k,
Thats a lot of money, given some large concerts cost ,£120 and have room for millions you can see these figures escalating. Hell, small time artists will know how much they can make from a small room with only ,£10 on the door.
Writers, This is where is gets messy. Traditional writers are the ones that lose out. There are a lot of replacement models for it, however since the royalty payments are gone, your talking about lose in revenue in these sections. The other models are governments paying for nation based books to promote tourism. Script writing will be where there are benefits by copyright abolishment.
Visual artist, The old world art will not change. People making paintings and sculpture will not change. Only digital art will be more free and recreation, manipulation of art becomes more progressive. Digital art will spiral up at a rate where quality and creativity are king.

So that covers Culture to a certian extent. There are many other models and as you can see me just listing off a 1 for each genre kinda takes up a lot of space. So moving on.

Research, This will become more government dependent. Then again, with nations interviewing in the sale of technology companies to over seas cooperations, as well as the increased amount of government subsidizing that currently occurs. I don't see this going any other way anyway. The only difference I see is that technology that fills a real need is promoted instead of a want. Like a new melon baller or a new thy master.

Most key R&D research is done by government subsidized projects anyway.

As for the issue of who gets money and how doesn't. Isn't the current situation with the financial industry caused by greed based on bad decisions on who does get money and who doesn't? We will always have this issue. This in no means is an excuse to leave it alone. I also realize the problem of government investment and free market investment being the same. My position currently is that more responsible decisions will be made by government (less risky) because the investors are the citizens. So technology with the most to offer are explored rather then who can sell really bad crap the most.

Capitalism, The ideal of capitalism was great at start ups. The issue is with huge amount of regulation start up companies face more and more problems. Government intervention such as loans and other financial structures and becoming more frequent. We have now seen the death of the free market model solution. Japan and China position are rethinking the capitalism and what it means for the people. Cultural they are very family orientated. (I use family loosely here as family to a Chinese person does not mean blood relations). We are seeing a form of culture that is far better that what we have been brought up with. It has it's faults like, a kind of feudalism, bigotry and racism. However it's core has meant that it Asia pretty much now owns America.

To give you an understanding of my concern and why I want to make these changes at the core patent and copyright law is simple. For western nations to reap the benefits from it's intellectual property monopoly you would have to have an international agreement for a law.

China for years has ignored Western calls to end there SPAM promoting IT industry where pretty much all western companies use to promote there crap. It's the irony of the situation we are in. America has a working GDP of $14 Trillion a year and yet b the end of next year we are looking at America owing almost $15 Trillion by the end of next year. China owning most of that debt, the only reason China currently does not pull the rug from under American feet is because China would lose the several Trillion it has invested into America. If at any point in the future China feels the loss of the investment is worth it, (IE it's other trading partners provide more than enough to subsidize for the lose in business with America) they will happy put America back into the stone age. Given the price of a loaf of bread in America will require you to bring a wheal barrow filled with money. I look at the faces of the all the leaders and I see absolute fear, they know the only reason they have power is because of the nukes they have, and every year as more nations build there own they start to realize the decreasing value of that asset.

PPUK has the opportunity to stop this new economic bubble in the service industry from appearing. This is why I support the PPUK and this is why I am a PPUK supporter. The numbers of Job's I can get created from the abolishment of a few laws is worth the sacrifice in my eyes of the rich who use a monopoly on information to gain there wealth.
ImprobableJoe said:
Here's a question: how does the government pay for ANYTHING, in a society where greedy do-nothings don't have to pay for anything? No sales taxes, no income taxes from people who actually create things, no corporate taxes because the corporations go out of business.

A really dumb answer comes from the "Pirate Party" children themselves: we'll go back in time!!
Notice how they had to go back as far as the 16th Century for their examples, and nothing from the past 50 years, while ignoring that pretty much no one is actually paying their rent by producing free software. I guess creative people will have to find patrons or marry into money... and do you really think that the patrons are going to want to pay for anything if they can't turn around and sell it?

Excuse me, I have given you plenty of examples of free things that are pretty good.

Games -
Dreamlord
Freeworld
Planetarion
Software -
AVG Antivirus
All versions of Linux
Some versions of UNIX

I could go on to show up your ignorance of products where the PEOPLE don't pay. However since you determined to ignore other economic models. I will just point and laugh when the international community pop the little bubble you seem happy to build in California and watch your kind of sick greed blow up in your face again.

;) LOL!

EPIC FAIL AGAIN!
ImprobableJoe said:
I'd actually have more respect for the Pirate Party if they wore eyepatches and dead parrots on their shoulders and said "Arrgh!" a lot while drinking in pubs and sailing on the weekends. That would be less stupid and to-the-bone ignorant than the actual Pirate Party. :lol:

Joe, you have proven over and over again to several people of your ignorance and hypocritical position. Deal with it!
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
ahdkaw said:
I also love the idea that musicians seem to believe that their time is worth more than any worker in a normal industry. You don't see sheet-metal workers getting royalties every time someone say crosses a bridge made from said metal.

I guess I'm going to have to explain this one to you. Sit tight.

You. Don't. Have. To. Listen. To. Music.

Something like a bridge is created to fufil a mandatory requirement in the surrounding area to traverse an obstacle, like a river or a gorge.

Something like music is created to fulfil a voluntary requirement. If you don't like it, you don't buy it or listen to it.

To be honest, statements like yours and from other supporters of the PP completely betray your bias towards musicians and artists (a previous one was that musicians should get "proper jobs"). You have a completely warped view of the whole thing. Considering you don't seem to be a serious artist of any kind yourself, I'm at a loss to see why your view should affect the lives of people like me, or the people I look up to. You're like one of those managers who gets installed into a store without any idea of how it actually works. Listen to what myself and other artists or creative types are saying on this thread. Why should you, someone without real understanding of the difference between writing a song and building a bridge, be allowed to dictate or even SUPPORT the dictation of the PP?

I imagine you will now tell me I don't understand the issues. I'm afraid I do. My impressions of the PP and those involved with it are of uncreative individuals who think their blinkered personal view of musicians and artists justifies revoking their rights.

Well, with any luck it will never come to pass.
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
I will just point and laugh when the international community pop the little bubble you seem happy to build in California and watch your kind of sick greed blow up in your face again.

Tsunamie, for this (and other things) you get warned. You can do better than accusing someone of "sick greed".
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
My impressions of the PP and those involved with it are of selfish, uncreative individuals who think their blinkered personal view of musicians and artists justifies revoking their rights.

Well, with any luck it will never come to pass.

revoking your rights?
Uncreative?
Have you seen the Pirate Party posters art work created by the artists that support our cause?
http://ppau.info/
I really like the Australian branch artwork, to be very honest with you.
Have you seen the Swedish members list?

Tell me how you feel about the models I have laided out. My test group so far is a hand full (6-7 musicians that I have spoken to) of bands. I have gotten my model well tuned thanks to it and my experiencing working for the media industry as a hobby.

I am actually more interested in speaking to actual writers about forming a complete model for. As I realize that there are lots of gaps in my economic models. What I think you should also bear in mind Th1sWasATriumph is the complete abolishment and small amount of change that abolishes the old system are very different. Where most PP supporters only want to abolish patents completely and perform reforms in the copyright section.

So basically what I am saying is that my views are not shared by the PPUK or the PP. My views are my own and I am using this thread as a test case for my proposal for the PP to change the manifesto to stat outright abolishment for copyright. If I feel I have a strong enough point given that I have covered all key point I will make that proposal.
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
Tsunamie said:
1> I see several ways out for WasATriumph. Join on the the musician communion's that have created low costs sound/ audio studio's. The technology and software can be gerry rigged by tech savy individuals. (This only seems to have occurred here in Europe from what I understand. I am unaware of this being done in America)
2> Get copyright abolished completely and have his music free flow around the world. Then setup gig's and appearances and make money of the live shows. The investment models still work for live shows as the artist is the product and not the CD's someone else makes.
3> There are other models, I can't list them all since I want to keep the posts as readable as possible. However you get the idea with the first two. Knowledge was used to get around these situation. Knowledge that was freely available on the net.

You're very good at giving vague, abstract advice. Of course! "Tech savy individuals" will appear from the ether and record my album for me. Of course some people, who own the equipment, will record their friends for free. That happens. But when is this equipment ever up to the standards of a professional recording studio? Seldom. It's not a viable solution compared to having the money and time to record properly or (in my case) do it all myself on a Mac.

As I've said, right now my music would be available to anyone, if I'd got round to uploading the recent stuff anywhere. That is a good way for people to start. It's certainly not a good way to continue when you start having to subsidise professional recording costs. Usually a record label pays for the recording time and recoups the money from the band's profit. If a band cannot sell cds or dvds or mp3s because copyright has been removed, there is little incentive for a label to support a band considering its profit margin has ruptured. Of course, we have your "tech savy individuals" to help out the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of struggling bands and artists that exist in the UK alone. I suppose we must be thankful for that.

You, like the others, don't seem to really understand the position of an artist from the inside. At least shapeshifter took what I said onboard as it was something he hadn't considered.
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
Tsunamie said:
revoking your rights?
Uncreative?
Have you seen the Pirate Party posters art work created by the artists that support our cause?
http://ppau.info/
I really like the Australian branch artwork, to be very honest with you.
Have you seen the Swedish members list?

Tell me how you feel about the models I have laided out. My test group so far is a hand full (6-7 musicians that I have spoken to) of bands. I have gotten my model well tuned thanks to it and my experiencing working for the media industry as a hobby.

Oh, you're kidding. The people working from WITHIN the PP and the handful of bands in your test group somehow prove the worldwide workability of this model? They don't. Not in the slightest.
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Tsunamie, for this (and other things) you get warned. You can do better than accusing someone of "sick greed".

Other things?

I can do a lot worse, such as show how his desire for cheap items is pretty much causing a modern day slave market. I could go into detail of how modern agriculture trends and ecology screw up the planet. I am making a clear point that this type of economical system is bad for Britain and can harm British economy a lot at expense of the average person, but since Joe is content in his ignorance, I rather inclined to return his stupid comets with a full analysis of his ridiculous position with an emotive response. After all, I am a firm believe in an eye for an eye.

So here is another question directed at you.

Do you feel artificial pop sensations like Britney and other farcical examples like the "Jade syndrome" (Jade being an uncultured, racist and ignorant deprived individual which made her fortune by being exploited by the media) deserves the ridiculous amount of money they get from the controlled channels of distribution for music that you must go through to reach her level of fame?
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
Tsunamie said:
I rather inclined to return his stupid comets with a full analysis of his ridiculous position with an emotive response. After all, I am a firm believe in an eye for an eye.

Well, that won't go down well here, so stop it. You just think he's ignorant because he disagrees with you.
Do you feel artificial pop sensations like Britney and other farcical examples like the "Jade syndrome" (Jade being an uncultured, racist and ignorant deprived individual which made her fortune by being exploited by the media) deserves the ridiculous amount of money they get from the controlled channels of distribution for music that you must go through to reach her level of fame?

I loathe Jade goody and thought the fuss surrounding her death was extreme and hypocritical. I also loathe Britney, and a great deal of other music.

However, that makes no difference at all.

PEOPLE wanted Britney. PEOPLE wanted Jade. I may not understand or agree, but there was a market and it was supplied. You now seem to be suggesting that people shouldn't like things like that simply because YOU don't and, much as I hate a great deal of modern music and celebrity culture, I'm not going to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't like. The public makes things popular, ultimately. You may have an idealistic view of what should be popular, but it won't catch on. And neither will that argument get me on your side.
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
You're very good at giving vague, abstract advice. Of course! "Tech savy individuals" will appear from the ether and record my album for me. Of course some people, who own the equipment, will record their friends for free. That happens. But when is this equipment ever up to the standards of a professional recording studio? Seldom. It's not a viable solution compared to having the money and time to record properly or (in my case) do it all myself on a Mac.

Precisely, so how do you currently make your earnings based on the fact that you record on a Mac? What is your distribution channel?
Th1sWasATriumph said:
As I've said, right now my music would be available to anyone, if I'd got round to uploading the recent stuff anywhere. That is a good way for people to start. It's certainly not a good way to continue when you start having to subsidise professional recording costs. Usually a record label pays for the recording time and recoups the money from the band's profit. If a band cannot sell cds or dvds or mp3s because copyright has been removed, there is little incentive for a label to support a band considering its profit margin has ruptured. Of course, we have your "tech savy individuals" to help out the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of struggling bands and artists that exist in the UK alone. I suppose we must be thankful for that.

The thing is, that these bands make an okay living out of what they do. You know better than most that you make a lot of money in one night from a live performance. Small time musicians even make there own CD's and you control your own distribution channels.

Also, I wasn't talking about a friend having the equipment. I was talking about the new artist communes in the UK. It's a new system that's becoming quiet populate where 10-20 artists pool there money together to build a state of the art studio. Recently one of these communes redden the studio in a football club and made a mint off there video and song from a music festival.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
You, like the others, don't seem to really understand the position of an artist from the inside. At least shapeshifter took what I said onboard as it was something he hadn't considered.

And what is that position? Lay it out for me.
As I see, several way you can get the money with out having been signed onto a big label. You as an artist simply have to take control of you own distribution methods. You see, for me you only getting the probable ,£10 million deals in royalty compared the the alternative of you getting ,£1 mill deals from tours in exchange for more jobs is an evil I am willing to enforce. Thats kind of my position, I have always known that copyright reforms will decrease the amount an individual can gain from one deal in general.

This in a since follows the current mechanics to combat greed that perpetuates a system that can fall over very hard and building a nation around one basic economy that is highly dependent on investment is also insane. It's like looking at the American and British banking systems and then seeing the internal mechanics of the entertainment industry. They kind of booms and bust scenario are just on the same scale in America.

Why are we so happy to bash bankers for making large bonuses and have huge payouts for doing very little and let artists like Britney, Madonna and (shit I have no more names because I don't actually watch media that much) are preaty much doing the same thing.
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Oh, you're kidding. The people working from WITHIN the PP and the handful of bands in your test group somehow prove the worldwide workability of this model? They don't. Not in the slightest.

True,

However when the model is used in the live economy and seems to work at present. I tend to move to the whole idea it can work very well. If you can show me how it doesn't work in my model or show me the flaws in the economies that use it. Please go right ahead and point them out.
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Well, that won't go down well here, so stop it. You just think he's ignorant because he disagrees with you.

No, I think he is ignorant because he made a load of statements that can be shown to be lies, then he continues to repeat them over and over again even after I show him models which currently use the free system where the creator gets paid.

1> He stated that Copyright does not effect frees peach
2> He stated that the artists don't get paid (He continues to say this even when there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this not being the case.)
Th1sWasATriumph said:
I loathe Jade goody and thought the fuss surrounding her death was extreme and hypocritical. I also loathe Britney, and a great deal of other music.

However, that makes no difference at all.

PEOPLE wanted Britney. PEOPLE wanted Jade. I may not understand or agree, but there was a market and it was supplied. You now seem to be suggesting that people shouldn't like things like that simply because YOU don't and, much as I hate a great deal of modern music and celebrity culture, I'm not going to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't like. The public makes things popular, ultimately. You may have an idealistic view of what should be popular, but it won't catch on. And neither will that argument get me on your side.

The key here is not what I think should be popular and what I think should not be popular. My argument is that in mass media a artificial sensation is manufactured by the distribution channels. In the case of Jade goody it was news papers. To make my point very clear, I first like to find out if you are familiar with the BBC or UK TV licenses as well as how the papers are controlled in London and to some extent the 2 other Major cities in the UK?
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
Tsunamie said:
Precisely, so how do you currently make your earnings based on the fact that you record on a Mac? What is your distribution channel?

I don't at the moment. My point is about bands and musicians in general. My musical earnings come more from session work and tutoring, although I do technically have some royalties building up somewhere for an album I played on.
Also, I wasn't talking about a friend having the equipment. I was talking about the new artist communes in the UK. It's a new system that's becoming quiet populate where 10-20 artists pool there money together to build a state of the art studio. Recently one of these communes redden the studio in a football club and made a mint off there video and song from a music festival.

Your support for this model is simply "it's happened once". That's really not good enough. It's also not something I've ever heard of.
So, this communally built studio - would it welcome in ANYONE? For free? There will always be some exchange of goods, monies or services.
And what is that position? Lay it out for me.

That a struggling or beginning (or ANY) artist definitely should not have the option of retaining copyright taken from him as it reduces potential revenue. It should be entirely their choice whether to make the music freely available or sell it.
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
Tsunamie said:
If you can show me how it doesn't work in my model or show me the flaws in the economies that use it. Please go right ahead and point them out.

Human nature. I, and most others, would rather retain the control over our own artistic endeavours. People like money. It's like communism, it would require a complete shift in the way we think, which is unrealistic. Although it's not for me to disprove but for you to PROVE.
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
Tsunamie said:
The key here is not what I think should be popular and what I think should not be popular. My argument is that in mass media a artificial sensation is manufactured by the distribution channels.

Of course there's an artificial sensation created. It's to sell things. Would you say that advertising a band on TV and with billboards is creating an artificial sensation? It's bringing something to the public's attention that it didn't previously know about. I wouldn't call that wrong or sinister. People liked Jade and obviously there was money in it, so more exposure.

You could not manufacture an artificial sensation out of something genuinely dull. The fact that you mentioned Britney and Jade proves that they elicit a reaction, either good or bad. I wouldn't call it an artificial sensation any more than the mass advertising of the Noisettes in the last few weeks.
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
I don't at the moment. My point is about bands and musicians in general. My musical earnings come more from session work and tutoring, although I do technically have some royalties building up somewhere for an album I played on.

Session work? Sorry not familiar with that term.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Your support for this model is simply "it's happened once". That's really not good enough. It's also not something I've ever heard of.
So, this communally built studio - would it welcome in ANYONE? For free? There will always be some exchange of goods, monies or services.

As far as I am aware. The communally build studio's take on the form of schools. The teachers or the new artists who pooled money together to build a studio. These studio's get quiet a bit of money from teaching people how each sector of the music business works. A lot of the people you see in the UK these days at music festival come from these music schools. They can rent out there studio and quiet low costs. They were on the BBC's "Britians increasing creative industry and innovation week" section a few months ago. I am looking for the links to one of these communes now and will post it as soon as I get the link.

Since music is not a major industry in the UK, the numbers are quiet low. However if you consider the ratio of artist compared to population. We have many writers, artists and musician in the UK. This phenomenon is not really a a western idea. IF you go to Asia you will see this kind of subliminal advertising in music, movie's and art. Which has allowed Bollywood to grow to almost the same size as Hollywood.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
That a struggling or beginning (or ANY) artist definitely should not have the option of retaining copyright taken from him as it reduces potential revenue. It should be entirely their choice whether to make the music freely available or sell it.

Okay so are you proposing a international registration system, or a kind of GNU policy for there work? As you have taken the middle ground here which makes it difficult to create a legal format for. How do you intend to regulate this choice of the artist? (Thats my main interest at this point, because f you go into the guts of it, patents are the primary concern of the PP, followed by privacy and then by copyright. I have so far stuck to the monetary value which is mainly attached to copyright)

http://www.masternewmedia.org/content-monetization-fighting-unlicensed-content-republication-via-distribution-networks-and-ad-sharing/

This is the kind of thing the PP promote. It also kind of reminiscent of the free Ebooks available online today where the publishing house gets a slice of the ad revenue. There are more evasive models that I disagree with. Simply put, I class them as brainwashing as the person is unaware of the advertisement. However a lot of other Pirate prefer that than the heavy regulations that dominate the media industry.

I also feel that the art work copyright should only be limited to you and you alone as an artist. Your kids have no real claim to the creation or rights to the copyright under your system. I like this rule simply because the re licensing of copyright material happen to often by people who did not create the work. What do you think about that?
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Human nature. I, and most others, would rather retain the control over our own artistic endeavours.
People like money. It's like communism, it would require a complete shift in the way we think, which is unrealistic. Although it's not for me to disprove but for you to PROVE.

This is kind of what I am getting at. The current economic criss has drawn a line in the sand and shown us that excessive greed can create these economic bubbles. Why is it okay for us now to tell CEO's of Banks they are not allowed to have ridiculous bonuses for doing essentially nothing most of the time and we let producers and distribution companies do the same?

I also agree that it's my duty to prove that this model has always been used and can become center stage.

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/01/09/product_placement_and_hypercommercialism_pervade.htm

The link above demonstrates how money can be generated for movies with out receiving royalties from sales. Granted the profits would be less to the film industry concerned but the overall job creation in other sectors would justify a government putting forward such a demand.

My basic logic is as follows. If governments are suppose to do what is best for the people and enforcing a no copyright law insures more jobs. Would it not be logical to enforce a law that reduces the benefits of these individuals while everyone else benefits. (The core of socialism)

the core of the British NHS system and benefit system. The benefit system in France has made it one of the most resilient to the financial crisis at this point.
 
arg-fallbackName="Tsunamie"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Of course there's an artificial sensation created. It's to sell things. Would you say that advertising a band on TV and with billboards is creating an artificial sensation? It's bringing something to the public's attention that it didn't previously know about. I wouldn't call that wrong or sinister. People liked Jade and obviously there was money in it, so more exposure.

You could not manufacture an artificial sensation out of something genuinely dull. The fact that you mentioned Britney and Jade proves that they elicit a reaction, either good or bad. I wouldn't call it an artificial sensation any more than the mass advertising of the Noisettes in the last few weeks.

I agree with you argument on this matter. I would however like to expand this to include social mechanism instead of leaving it in the monetary value section of this debate so far.

Adverts are dieing thanks to the BBC and on demand TV like Sky + or the American equivalent Tvo. This is where live TV is slowly dieing and distribution networks suffer. This is highlighted by the slow death of ITV since BBC iplayer was released. This gives the BBC, which is essentially a tax paid for media distribution network

Do you feel the BBC should produce more entertainment media (ie. Movies, soups and ect)? Or do you feel that a government based broadcast system should focus on improving general knowledge?

Example of this would be the flood of Darwin/atheism based documentaries during Darwin week. Others like the current human journey series are fantastic. I would like to hear your opinion on weather you feel a entertainment distribution network that is geared towards educating the public is better than one totally focused on profits from entertainment and why you think your choice is better?

I am overjoyed with the amount documentaries that have appeared because of the recession. The justification of giving large amounts of mind numbing entertainment to the public while paying American distribution companies was annoying me to no end. The Budget has been slashed and now I watch more TV because of these.

Like I have stated before, I don't believe in ripping off material. Like you say I have a choice and it's quiet easy one to make. As shown by my poor bank statement. ;( importing Japanese/Korean cult movies is not cheap.) I think the biggest concern I have concerns the economical/social mechanics of the media industry and the similarities I see in it compared to the bank system. I am also worried about the way China is trying to force the issue of having a separate world bank to insure America Dollars don't corrupt the currency market as it has over the last year.

Also, As someone thats thinking about going into politics. I am want to know how the law I want to push effects people it effects. As a result I have been limited to only the people I have encountered and find it difficult to find artists well versed in there rights as an artist. Are you connected to any British artist groups which I can contact?
 
Back
Top