Comment Marginalised Music Distribution (Score 1) 290
(incidentally, I spelled the name wrong. How do I change it?)
Music is more than data; but it's not more more-than-data than sofware, cinema or literature. All of which benefit from being as widely distributed as possible; culture flourishes as culture producers (which is just a sugared term for "content provider," but nevertheless) gain readier access to one another's work. I won't bother to repeat the rosy technofantasies of the anarchists who infest this server like so many sarcastic body pierced rats, but there's a possibility of real enrichment of the human condition with this technology, and the "shortsighted" people are the people trying to get in the way of that.
The real problem is: how can a musician, or anyone else producing a cultural product, once the distribution of culture is itself free, make a dime? Musicians like Metallica shouldn't have a problem. Aside from live touring, there are all sorts of things they can do - merchandising, for example. Really famous musicians, for that matter anyone selling about half a million records like the relatively popular underground bands which demographics indicate my fellow slashdotters like, can make a perfectly respectable living for themselves and their lawyers, without the revenue from actual album sales. Another poster was reiterating the argument everyone always makes about that guy who wrote Catcher in the Rye... he was a real recluce... anyway, he wouldn't want to go on speaking tours. Someone that popular could make a fortune just by sending a request that money be sent to him at a P.O.Box.
The problem, and it is a problem, is that the new system of music distribution is growing up organically, and it isn't doing what it should be doing, which is to provide a system of economic support (with dignity) for those really marginalised musicians who the RIAA isn't even interested in.
In the hayday european classical music, musicians and composers made a living through what amounted to various forms of patronage (which is also what album sales represent, incidentally.) Now, I don't believe that culture should be dicatated by rich people, which is the case under the CURRENT system, but I digress, patronage is the real promise of online music distribution. We need to build a logistical system so that an artist, with perhaps only 5,000 patrons/viewers/listerners/fans scattered around the world, can make a living from their work.
Aside from the solution that seems obvious to me (it involves the government paying people after counting hits...) how do people think you would do this, from a nuts and bolts perspective? Keep in mind that fraud is still a real problem, and you have to take steps to protect people's reputations (or maybe you don't?) Much more interesting question than "should music distribution go on-line" which is, of course, a moot point.
shandelm@chemistry.ucsc.edu
Music is more than data; but it's not more more-than-data than sofware, cinema or literature. All of which benefit from being as widely distributed as possible; culture flourishes as culture producers (which is just a sugared term for "content provider," but nevertheless) gain readier access to one another's work. I won't bother to repeat the rosy technofantasies of the anarchists who infest this server like so many sarcastic body pierced rats, but there's a possibility of real enrichment of the human condition with this technology, and the "shortsighted" people are the people trying to get in the way of that.
The real problem is: how can a musician, or anyone else producing a cultural product, once the distribution of culture is itself free, make a dime? Musicians like Metallica shouldn't have a problem. Aside from live touring, there are all sorts of things they can do - merchandising, for example. Really famous musicians, for that matter anyone selling about half a million records like the relatively popular underground bands which demographics indicate my fellow slashdotters like, can make a perfectly respectable living for themselves and their lawyers, without the revenue from actual album sales. Another poster was reiterating the argument everyone always makes about that guy who wrote Catcher in the Rye... he was a real recluce... anyway, he wouldn't want to go on speaking tours. Someone that popular could make a fortune just by sending a request that money be sent to him at a P.O.Box.
The problem, and it is a problem, is that the new system of music distribution is growing up organically, and it isn't doing what it should be doing, which is to provide a system of economic support (with dignity) for those really marginalised musicians who the RIAA isn't even interested in.
In the hayday european classical music, musicians and composers made a living through what amounted to various forms of patronage (which is also what album sales represent, incidentally.) Now, I don't believe that culture should be dicatated by rich people, which is the case under the CURRENT system, but I digress, patronage is the real promise of online music distribution. We need to build a logistical system so that an artist, with perhaps only 5,000 patrons/viewers/listerners/fans scattered around the world, can make a living from their work.
Aside from the solution that seems obvious to me (it involves the government paying people after counting hits...) how do people think you would do this, from a nuts and bolts perspective? Keep in mind that fraud is still a real problem, and you have to take steps to protect people's reputations (or maybe you don't?) Much more interesting question than "should music distribution go on-line" which is, of course, a moot point.
shandelm@chemistry.ucsc.edu
