|
Steve Angello's Antipiracy Statement (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| phlog |
| how about producers give their music away for free on a website but make people watch a small ad before downloading. simple, effective, profitable?. make people pay a bit for high quality copies meant for dj's etc. artists are going to have to get creative if they want to make money. |
|
|
| phlog |
| quote: | Originally posted by activate
umm... you mean in like the 1880?
because that's when cylinder phonographs started becoming popular... or maybe you mean before flat discs came out? so pre 1915?
lol |
what's your point man? did wikipedia tell you that?
technology changed the way artists profited from music then and it's doing the same now. |
|
|
| Shade |
| quote: | Originally posted by phlog
how about producers give their music away for free on a website but make people watch a small ad before downloading. simple, effective, profitable?. make people pay a bit for high quality copies meant for dj's etc. artists are going to have to get creative if they want to make money. |
How will that change anything from how it is today? Most artists in this industry have a myspace which allows people to listen to clips, yet someone still goes out, buys the track and gives it to the masses. Artists with websites often have ads on them too, but it hardly leads to any sort of compensation. |
|
|
| phlog |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shade
How will that change anything from how it is today? Most artists in this industry have a myspace which allows people to listen to clips, yet someone still goes out, buys the track and gives it to the masses. Artists with websites often have ads on them too, but it hardly leads to any sort of compensation. |
just making a suggestion. you did ask how i think artists should adapt right?
there's a big difference between a ty quality clip and a (say 128kbs) track.
many web sites make lots of cash from advertising (obviously). |
|
|
| Shade |
| quote: | Originally posted by phlog
just making a suggestion. you did ask how i think artists should adapt right?
there's a big difference between a ty quality clip and a (say 128kbs) track.
many web sites make lots of cash from advertising (obviously). |
Many people are happy with 128 kbps. It's kind of odd, but meh.
And websites that make a lot from advertising are huge; an artist website - especially in this industry - isn't likely to get anywhere near as much traffic. |
|
|
| Antal |
| quote: | Originally posted by Irishaddict
sigh.
besides the prince thing as possibly the worst example ever in the history of backing up an argument, the stagnant fact remains that if you are a professional artist you should be PAID for the WORK you do.
You wouldn't expect to walk out of a automobile dealership with a brand new car - simply because some company really loves making cars - so how can you expect to receive music that takes time, effort, equipment investment (to name a few) for free? Where does the culture of entitlement come from? |
Sigh...before your claim that Prince it the worst example in the history of backing up an argument you should REALLY look over your argument example, since its just as brutal. LOL. |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
I felt the following needed to be restated in really big, bold letters:
| quote: | Originally posted by phlog
technology changed the way artists profited from music then and it's doing the same now. |
|
|
|
| activate |
| quote: | Originally posted by phlog
what's your point man?
|
my point is that it's quite rediculous to compare any aspect of industry to how it was 100+ years ago. |
|
|
| Skipper |
I think the problem with phlog's argument is that it's basically assuming that intellectual property isn't valuable anymore. That technology has changed what is defined as IP to begin with. There is something so so fundamentally flawed with that concept.
The method of distribution does not change the product that is being distributed or the ownership of it. |
|
|
| Shade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Antal
Sigh...before your claim that Prince it the worst example in the history of backing up an argument you should REALLY look over your argument example, since its just as brutal. LOL. |
I don't see how that's a poor argument, feel free to enlighten me. |
|
|
| Irishaddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by Antal
Sigh...before your claim that Prince it the worst example in the history of backing up an argument you should REALLY look over your argument example, since its just as brutal. LOL. |
Enlighten me then. :) |
|
|
| chinamon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
The method of distribution does not change the product that is being distributed or the ownership of it. |
agreed... but the method of distribution does change the way it is stolen. |
|
|
|
|
