1 Jul
2010
1 Jul
'10
2:51 p.m.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 13:38:39 you wrote:
its certainly awful, as are your other examples.
And getting worse.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
I think it is worth some serious experimenting and efforts on the before and
at phases to see what we can come up with before we discount them out of
hand.
Anyone else interested?
So, you think that the before and at options are
not viable?
i don't believe that the before or at options are viable for the
overwhelming majority of artists & creatives. i think that "before/at"
can probably work for programmers working on contract work. i'm
fine (to some extent) with the conclusion that we, as a society,
no longer wish to pay artists & creatives to do what they do. but if
that's really going to be the conclusion, we'd better think very
carefully about all the side effects. i'm not sure its pretty, and it
may be even less pretty than the world in which disney and sonny bono
get everything they ask for.
This I seriously doubt. Putting someone off the internet for *being
accused* of violating copyright three times is way over the top.
on the other hand, i'm not sure quite how the mixture of easy
distribution via the net but almost no paid compensation for most
artistic work would compare the situation we've had for on the order
of 100 years, in which it was feasible for quite a lot of artists to
make a living by being artists.
Let's brainstorm and run some experiments and see what we can learn and
document it for everyone.
One new thought I just had was making early access the thing you charge for.
People can pay to be the first to have your new hit.
For those able and willing to perform. A world without collection societies
might/should free up more money on the part of the venue folks to pay to the
performers.
and i don't mean this as a snide rhetorical remark - i mean that i
really don't know.
No, it is a real issue. Not one for easy and snide answers.
all the best,
drew