The Virtual Tip Jar
Posted by
emmett
on Fri Aug 11, 2000 06:48 AM
from the squeezebox dept.
from the squeezebox dept.
kemokid writes: "At last, an example of what Courtney Love was talking about. Fairtunes is a site set up to allow users to tip musicians directly. You can read the Music Dish news story about it." $269 and change donated so far, I'm interested to see where this one goes.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Fairtunes: The Virtual Tip Jar
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 201 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Slashdot Effect. (Score:3)
Here's my TIP (Score:3)
I never eat a sig cuz my sig is a crock...
But will they actually get the money? (Score:3)
Also, the fact that my Visa card bank has a minimum charge of £5 means that I will pay more to the bank than to the actual company or artists!
Withdrawel (Score:3)
Courtney Love a creation of the recording industry (Score:5)
What struck me about Coutrney Love's interview was that so much of her concept of an artist is derived from the manner in which hollywood and the recording industry treat artists.
When she uses terms like "creative person", or talks about how good recording execs are at masssaging the egos of their "talent", she's revealing how much she has bought into the whole system of maintaining stables of "talent". I mean really, who says artists have to be treated like gods, or treated by fans, distributors, managers in the manner the recording industry treats them? What Courtney Love is really saying, is that she likes the way the recording industry execs treats her, and wants internet content companies to massage her ego in the same way. Whether this is how all artists want to be treated is a different matter altogether.
The nonsense about the sound quality of MP3s preventing someone from enjoying the performance is another strawman. The problem generally is that someone used a bad encoder, or a damaged recording to make the MP3. If one does it appropriately, MP3s have very good sound quality. If you're listening to something interesting, even an LP makes for an interesting listen. If you're listening to bad music, using a better format won't change anything.
This attitude towards technology is not surprising at all. It feeds in perfectly with the strategy of the recording industries, where increasingly bad content (and yeah, I'll call it content if I want to Courtney, little of the mass entertainment produced by the music industry counts as art in my book) is released using increasingly sophisticated technology. Witness the quality of films produced by Hollywood, it has been steadily declining, as the quality of special effects and distribution media becomes better. Something most people have seen occur on the web, flashy sites, dumb content, high co-ordination with the point when LA become home to web-development companies.
In sum, I think Courtney makes some great points in the essay. The distribution system used by the music industry is broken, and serves only their own purposes. It would be great to see an independent distribution mechanism arise which is efficient, and capable of rewarding the people who are most important to a music recording (or a book for that matter). Some of them may well require managers, or editors, to guide them (clearly Courtney excepts to have someone like this), but this fucntion should not be foisted on the distribution company. Why should artists who are mature enough to handle themselves, have to see some of their earnings diverted towards paying psychologist-managers to look after enfant terribles? Why should consumers have to pay more either? If the artist requires therapy, they should foot their own bill.
The problem is, pop artists rely more on a cult of personality than their art. The recording industry loves it because they control the media that creates personalities (Hansen, Britney Spears, Jenifer Lopez, Leonardo DiCaprio). I'm more interested in the substance. So I'm not particularly interested in what Courtney Love does, but rather what she produces.
Re:But will they actually get the money? (Score:3)
Now if an artist went out and said "don't buy our CD, download it from Napster and send us a dollar", the company could have a case against them. I imagine something like that will end up happening; and it'll be interesting to see the way it goes.
Though everywhere I look, I can see the recording industry pimps' luck running out. Thanks to Courtney Love, Steve Albini, the Napster case and the Internet, lots of people know what bastards they are, how they rip off all sides. Now that 90% of the industry is five massive companies in the process of becoming four, there is no doubt that the recording industry is inhuman, artless corporate greed on a massive scale. And now that they've sued mp3.com and Napster, and the head of Universal came out calling for an end to Internet anonymity so that they could rake in the profits unhindered, it's clear to see who the villains are. Witness their reversal on the work-for-hire bill; chances are the changing tide of public opinion forced their hand.
It is only inertia that keeps the Big Five controlling the medium of recorded music. It no longer takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to record an album and promote it, thanks to advances in recording technologies and the Internet. The RIAA's role as gatekeepers depends on consumers and artists staying where they are. They can afford to lose Public Enemy and a few others, but they can't afford it turning into a mass exodus of artists to new distribution mechanisms. Eventually, they may get things like DVD Audio and SDMI put into place, where they control the means of encoding (as the MPAA does with DVD), and have a secure oligopoly. But that can only happen if their industry doesn't collapse like a house of cards first; hence, they're treading water.
If the RIAA try to sue these people, or take the money from artists with lawyers, there will be an outcry, and their situation will worsen.
Sliding Scale doesn't work (Score:3)
People imagine themselves to be generous, but few of us are as generous as we imagine.
BTW, $269 wouldn't even pay for the 2" tape used to record one album...
Re:Street Performer Protocol - misnamed (Score:3)
One possible way:
You think: I need $2000, and I have ~4000 listeners.
You say: "I need about one dollar from each of you."
Later, you think: I want to make five times as much, and I have ~40,000 listeners
You say: "Now, just 50 cents per person!"
In today's business model, it doesn't cost much more to listen to the most popular musicians (with the exception of live shows, and I'm not sure how much of that is venue-gouging). A CD is a CD, and the extra profit comes from volume.
- Michael Cohn
Micropayment or Subscription (Score:3)
- You go on an MP3 site and they charge you, say...
- 5$ a month for limited downloads,
- 10$ for unlimited radio-like broadcasts (you are only allowed to make a selection amongst a selection to which you contribute by vote)
- or 50$ for unlimited downloads (whatever there is, you can accees it and download it).
- Regularly, statistics are gathered and artists get a percentage for what they got heard.
Of course,this is a draft so it might sound incomplete, so, instead of [flames ¦ moderation], juste contribute and suggest.Some remarks before I click the Submit button
--
What's wrong with the middle men? (Score:3)
I've seen the statement "we don't want all the money going to the middle man" tossed around here quite a bit, and it got me thinking... I bet most of us here who have jobs end up working for some sort of "middle man". So if we try to cut out the middle man in these transactions, aren't we in fact taking money away from our fellow workers' pockets? (i.e. the middle men will see a decline in revenue, have to cut wages/jobs, etc.)
Okay, I'm done playing the advocate, I know that the above doesn't take into account all of the variables, but the fact is that for most products, middle men are necessary. There aren't a whole lot of CD manufacturing plants that have walk-up counters with cashiers, ready to take our orders. And our economic system seems to be built on the idea of having tons of distributors and resellers and retailers and whatnot, which in turn gives lots of people a job and food on their tables.
Just something I thought that people might want to think about.
Re:What's wrong with the middle men? (Score:5)
What's wrong with middlemen is that unless they add significant value to the transaction, they are parasites. If so, everyone else involved would be strictly better off if they were eliminated. If the middlemen eat 90% of the transaction costs (by no means unreasonable if you're talking about music), if the musician could deal directly with the consumer, you could quintuple the amount the musician gets, while halving the amount the consumer pays.
As to middlemen, let them find jobs where they are producing something of value, or performing a service, or even being middlemen in a transaction where they can add value (e.g. almost anything where the product can't be distributed instantly anywhere for practically nothing).
If you think our economic system is built upon shuffling money around endlessly without actually producing anything of worth, maybe you should study some economics. Think about where the money is coming from at the start of the transaction, and where it could go if it weren't being siphoned off every step of the way. People who think that adding frictional costs to transactions is a good thing ("it's food on someone's table!") are the same sort of people who think "I can't be overdrawn, I still have checks left!"
Re:Yes But, how do.... (Score:3)
An AC wrote: How do the Record Companies get Paid? This is still unfair to them.
CmdrNacho wrote: If you're looking for freebies, go to a soup kitchen or your local Salvation Army.
Well, that's exactly what we keep trying to tell them, but they don't listen! Buncha lazy good-for-nothing bums! They think they can get stuff for free -- that just because they've always got things for free in the past they have a right to continue this practice indefinitely!
It's time for the record companies to wake up. Their free ride is over. Their welfare state -- created and empowered by a government-granted monopoly on an infinite resource -- is being destroyed.
The world -- or at least a small part of it -- is finally beginning to realize that "intellectual property" is a crock of shit. Just because someone has a funny little C-with-a-circle-around it and their name on something, that doesn't mean that they have a natural right to make money from it. In fact, there is no natural right to make money at all. That's what a free market means -- you may make money, or you may not. You spin the wheel, you take your chance.
Now all we have to do is survive the mercenaries they're likely to send to kill us. (Hint: they're the ones with the red-white-and-blue flags on their uniforms. Bought and paid for by the RIAA using the money that you spent on CDs. You didn't think all that money went to the artist, didya?) At least the second amendment isn't completely dead yet. We still have some hope of living through this with both lives and freedom intact.
(Sorry, I'm in a bad mood this morning.)
I like it (Score:5)
- Can see total contribs to date for entire site
- Can see total contribs to date for individual artists
- Can contribute via credit card
- Marketspeak free (the fine print re: credit card fees is refreshingly clear and frank)
- Tip amounts are free-form entry (i.e. no "$10, $100 or $1000" drop down)
- Can leave message to send to artist (of course proof that they read it is missing, but whaddya gonna do)
- Very simple and fast site
Some of the music I own is so good I'd be willing to use a site like this to tip even after buying the album.I have to wonder though: What do the artist's contracts look like? Do they have to split these tips with their labels because they are revenues generated from jointly produced work? I can see how they'd get around this if I were tipping a band member (just a person-to-person transaction). But I'm tipping by band name--not really the same thing.
--
Nice idea, but... (Score:3)
$269 is a good gesture, but its only that -- a gesture. That doesn't pay bills, keep food on the table, or make it worth the hassle for the artist to keep on creating. (He could do better working at McDonald's) An argument might run that an true artist doesn't really need to be rich if he really loves his job, but we have to face reality, artists need money -- real money.
I think this is a good first step, but we need to improve on this idea. You can't really count on the generosity of others to make a living. What if waitresses didn't get a salary but instead relied entirely on tips?
Actually, that analogy is flawed, because in the case of the artist and MP3s, you don't really see the artist's face being polite to you trying to win your favor like a waitress does. People pay much less attention to the artist than the actual music. How do convince people that they are ethically obligated to donate money into this tip jar? Maybe they'll get about 20,000 Slashdot folk to do it, but there are hundreds of millions in the US alone that need convincing.
Re:Courtney Love. (Score:3)
As for your joke about Kurt Cobain's death.........grow up.
This idea should work for more than just music. (Score:4)
In short, the reason you donate is that it sends a message to the world that there is money to be had in making something you like. You aren't donating primarily to support one specific producer, but to reward, and thus encourage, the behavior of making such products and releasing them for free distribution.
The key to making it work is for each buskware producer to give full public disclosure of how much money they receive, with as much information about which product it was for as is available. This is the payoff for the donor, as other people can look at this and think "Hey! He's making money at it, I should try, too!" (conversely, they are discouraged from following the example of people who don't make an adequate profit).
Music is something of a special case, as most music isn't tailored to a particular audience, and people generally don't seem to prefer that it is, but at the very least you are encouraging musicians to believe that they can distribute their music freely, without signing on with a big label.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Street Performer Protocol (Score:3)
--
Cool (Score:4)
Even better, this money goes *right* to the artist (sounds like it at least) circumventing every middle-man down the line slicing his share off. I think this could turn the tables so that now *artists* are in control, and instead pay for the services of the recording industry.
Rent ain't free. (Score:3)
There's your problem. You're talking about a very limited distribution medium (how far does sound carry?) with a real-world cost.
In that situation, you need a certain minimum average donation, and that's what kills the profit model.
There is no motive for the people to donate more. They gain no advantage by encouraging voluntary admission shows if they pay more at each one. If they were willing to pay $30 for the show, they'd rather it be required and not have to fight for elbow-space with the riffraff that crowds in for free. It is against their interests to subsidize the admission of people who pay less.
There is also the problem that there is only one opportunity to donate. If you have a copy of a song, listen to it often, and the option to pay is always there, you are a lot more likely to decide it's worth paying for at a time when you are able to donate.
Paying voluntary admission is "social donation", people pay because they are in a public place and feel obligated to demonstrate that they're not freeloaders. Naturally, they look at it as a problem in how little they can get away with spending (hmm... what's the recommended minimum?).
It's different when you're paying for freely distributed (whether legally or not) music in private and at your own convenience. Then you stop thinking "how little can I get away with spending" and start thinking "how much do I want to spend on keeping this band around"?
Whether this will work out remains to be seen...
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
You Obviously Don't Live In New York. (Score:5)
$269 is a good gesture, but its only that -- a gesture. That doesn't pay bills, keep food on the table, or make it worth the hassle for the artist to keep on creating...reality, artists need money -- real money.
Most of my friends in NYC have worked as waiters at one time or the other and currently do so now while in school. One of them is a bright kid who is currently working on Nanotech research at the Rochester Institute of Technology yet he frequently waits tables while in school instead of looking for a better job.
Why is this?
In New York city, everybody tips. There is a social stigma associated with people who do not tip. When Hilary Clinton ate a meal at a restuaraunt and didn't tip, it made front page news in some tabloids. Because of this it is normal for waiters to make anything from $100 to $200 a night depending on how busy the restaurant is. Working five days a week that is comparable to what most people make after a gruelling 4 year degree in college.
I think this is a good first step, but we need to improve on this idea. You can't really count on the generosity of others to make a living. What if waitresses didn't get a salary but instead relied entirely on tips?
They do, most waiters/waitresses make half of minimum wage. Obviously no one is making a living on $80 a week (after taxes) for 40 hours of work.
How do convince people that they are ethically obligated to donate money into this tip jar?
Easy, bombard people with information about tip sites until they feel socially obligated to do so. If all 20 million Napster users suddenly started getting hit with banner ads advocating tipping the artists whose music they were downloading, how many do you think wouldn't? Especially if the payment process was easy. Heck, if I could click a link from Napster everytime I downloaded a good song to throw a dollar or two at the artist I would. Multiply that by a few million and you have a new distribution model that pays artists a lot more than the current butt-fucking that the RIAA gives artists.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Street Performer Protocol - misnamed (Score:3)
The Street Performer Protocol has little relation to the operating procedure of street performers (a.k.a. buskers): a price is set and must be matched. Have you ever seen a busker with a sign, "I'm only playing the first half of this song, if there isn't $10 in my hat by the end of the first half, I won't play the second half."? It doesn't fit the analogy at all.
I think it is a badly flawed variant of mass market busking [boswa.com] (not to suggest that the idea was derived from it, just that MMB is the more general term).
The flaws?
Well, how do you set the price? You know donations are going to drop right off once one the price is reached; when you explain it in terms of influencing this one single producer, people will think of it in those terms and look for the minimum donation they can get away with (and who knows what price you'll set for the next piece? better to hold some back against future increase). So when you set a target, you also set a limit.
What if you're a runaway success? You can't raise your price and not expect your customers to feel betrayed.
What if your sequel isn't as well-received as the first book, even though it pays well enough that you'd like to keep going? You can't lower the price when you see it's not going to be met, or people won't take you seriously at all.
IMHO, it's far better to just let people pay what they will. If you want to make noises about giving up on the project because you're making too little money, fine, but don't try to set a price target/limit before release. Only someone like Stephen King, who has such a loyal following that he can predict demand, can get away with this kind of thing.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Steven King, with music (Score:5)
The thing about these sorts of scheme is that they believe that fundamentally most people are honest, as was demonstrated by King. The record industry (and movie) work on the principal that if people can steal it they will.
I believe that the latter arguement has got human nature fundamentally wrong. I don't mind paying for a CD/Video but what I do mind is the fact that these things cost so much and most of the money goes to the middle men. This is especially true with CDs when the artists get relatively little.
This sort of thing works because most people don't mind paying Steven King 1USD a chapter (as long as there arn't too many chapters
The same could work for music. When we are all downloading music direct from the artists we cercumvent the distibution companies, removing them froom the loop. Most people would be willing to pay a reasonable amount direct to the band on an honour basis, and with costs so low you wouldn't have to ask for much.
I live in York (england) and at the Minster (big church) they don't charge you to look around (partly because they can't), but they do request that everyone make a voluntary donation of a suggested amount, and most people do. Admitidly it being religious probably helps, but I have seen a similar scheme used for other historic buildings. This works because people are generally willing to pay for what they get.
The same is true for musicians, artists, writers, movie makers and software writers. If people like what you have done they will more than likely pay for it because they want more.
What people object to is paying through the nose for a CD only to find out that it is rubbish when they get home.
With the advent of digital distribution for music, books and films (digi projectors and broardband?) we could (eventually) see the sidelining of the distributers, and money going direct to artists on an honour system. At which point piracy becomes moot and everyone is happy (except the RIAA and MPAA of course).
A little utopian (and rather long winded), but we can hope. King has already shown that it can work for the well known artists, it just remains to be seen how it scales down to the up and comming ones who have no publicity machine or well known name. Mabey.