[LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups

[ailo]

On 07/01/2010 03:09 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
> Hey guys!
>
> And while I am preparing my answer to some very excellent points made 
> here (some of which made me rethink several particular situations), I 
> want to give you some food for discussion - do we really want more 
> professionals in the field of arts? Is it an unquestionable good that 
> musicians make a living out of music?
>
> Or, more obviously, writers? What would a writer have to say if all he 
> sees is his writing desk? So many creative people, both musicians and 
> writers, changed many professions, received lots and lots of life 
> experience before they started to seriously create stuff, reflecting 
> on their experiences.
>
> But so far the law assumes that if someone makes a living off of his 
> creativity, it will necessarily make him more fruitful. But I've seen 
> several cases when the effect was the opposite. And that was actually 
> in the field of music, when a musician would loose his originality and 
> touch once he got a contract and started to pump out professional cds. 
> Something did not work out.
>
Yes, a very big change for a lot of artist who one day are totally 
unknown (doing everything by themselves) and the next day having tons of 
pressure because of all the people involved: managers, producers, fans, 
etc. And suddenly a lot of people are trying to get you to do things 
their way (all in the interest of making some money). This of course 
usually only happens to artists who make music that CAN make a lot of money.

> Also, when the professional scene is not so dominating, people tend to 
> be more musically educated. And in general more people know how to 
> sing and/or play an instrument. It is actually a statistical fact that 
> folk music has deteriorated with the rise of professional music and 
> that the active involvement of people into music has decreased very 
> significantly, since it became uncommon to compete with highly trained 
> professionals. A lot of music today is passive entertainment, not 
> active. This does have an indirect connection to copyright, since 
> songs written yesterday were written for everybody to sing (even if 
> they take money for the performance). Nowadays songs are written to be 
> listened.
>
> Louigi.
>    
At least I would say that people's listening habits aren't as polarized 
as they used to be (remember the times when there were only two music 
styles: hard rock and synth?). I don't even know if music has the same 
effect on people anymore, since there's so much else on the internet 
these days. This may be a very subjective observation, though.

Regarding copyright, have you guys heard of Spotify? It can be used for 
free (but with annoying commercial breaks). I've heard that artist are 
beginning to earn some money from that now (it was a bit slow in the 
beginning).
I could imagine having a system like Myspace, where anyone could set up 
an account, and earn money from the traffic amount. Sort of royalty 
based income, no middle hands needed. This would at least ensure total 
freedom from the artists perspective (especially if one has a lot of 
freedom with the web design, using both audio and video). The artist 
that wish to make it into an enterprise will no doubt keep working with 
producers and managers, even without the traditional record company.

The problem is of course restrictions. What sort of restrictions and who 
decides them?
There was an idea that everyone who pays for Internet would also pay a 
fee to access any kind of media. All the media you want, for a fixed 
price, like taxes. The money would then be distributed to artist in the 
form of royalty.

In any case, one thing needs to stay clear, I think. Everyone should 
have the possibility to access all media available, or at least all 
older media available, from anywhere, at any time. Anything else seems 
backwards to me.

- Ailo