Content Creators & Web Model Design

[Nublu]

but no one wants to consider it.

Spill it, I will consider it. Deeply

I might also reject it.

 

 

you do know that OS X is using a BSD Unix sub-system....open source. That simple fact attracted a lot of developers and development to the Operating system.

 

My daughter used to babysit for a lady who was a software engineer. She was part of the team that designed and implemented the baggage tracking system for an airport in a Major U.S.city. Her and her husband were both Linux Kernel Contributors. They are anything but stupid. Them and the other aprox. 3,500 kernel contributors really don't need anyone's permission to exercise their talents and freedoms. I fully support their right to choose.

[ski]

but no one wants to consider it.

Spill it, I will consider it. Deeply

I might also reject it.

 

I appreciate that you would consider my idea if I were to voice it, but I think it's better to have a conversation about and specifically identify the larger issues rather than bandy about the merits of a specific idea to try and solve them. And I'm not sure that the larger issues have been adequately identified.

 

Re baggage handling systems, sorry, but the cynic in me has to chuckle at the effectiveness of airport baggage handling systems. Have you ever had a bag flown, say, to Lisbon when your destination was actually Philadelphia?

 

Freedom to choose... not gonna touch that one right now, as my reply would be voluminous and I don't have the time.

[Rev. Juda Sleaze]

...I think it's better to have a conversation about and specifically identify the larger issues rather than bandy about the merits of a specific idea to try and solve them. And I'm not sure that the larger issues have been adequately identified.

 

It also seems a bit strange that we're expecting a blanket solution for anything and everything on the internet. I was also trying to make the point before that the people making money out the "the way things are" don't see it as a problem.

 

We do seem to have reached a consensus with David's assertion that it's the money that matters (which should never come as a suprise).

 

Re baggage handling systems, sorry, but the cynic in me has to chuckle at the effectiveness of airport baggage handling systems. Have you ever had a bag flown, say, to Lisbon when your destination was actually Philadelphia?

 

Well, the lady did need babysitting by Nublu's daughter, so... it kinda makes sense...

[ski]

Well, the lady did need babysitting by Nublu's daughter, so... it kinda makes sense...

 

 

Yup, it's all about the money, and putting a boatload of it into the pockets of the people who create the content. It's also about protecting copyrighted material and establishing limitations (including punitive ones) to prevent it from being disseminated for free when the author has not put it in the public domain. Finally, and very importantly, it's definitely not about tying creative content to advertising (of which 99% of any ad you see represents a scam or a misrepresentation).

[David Nahmani]

I agree with Nublu and in many cases I don't see anything wrong with distributing stuff for free. There's a lot of freedom that comes with not working for money. And a lot of a bunch of other things as well. After all, we're all here helping other Logic users for free. Using an open source BB software.

 

On the other hand I'm drinking a complimentary coffee right now and it tastes like a goat's behind. My open-source kingdom for a good coffee!

[Rev. Juda Sleaze]

I agree with Nublu and in many cases I don't see anything wrong with distributing stuff for free. There's a lot of freedom that comes with not working for money. And a lot of a bunch of other things as well. After all, we're all here helping other Logic users for free. Using an open source BB software.

 

Yeah, but perhaps that is the element of choice Ski was alluding to...

 

It's fine if you choose to work for free because you have other streams of revenue coming in. It sucks when you try to make a living and people rip-off your stuff.

 

You know one of the best examples of free service (that outdates the internet by a fair margin)? International post. If I put the correct postage on something and send it to the US, the US postal service delivers it on trust, without receiving a penny for it. It's also a non-hierarchical structure to boot.

 

On the other hand I'm drinking a complimentary coffee right now and it tastes like a goat's behind. My open-source kingdom for a good coffee!

 

But if it tasted like a weasel's behind it would cost an arm and a leg! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak

[Scott Jackson]

On the other hand I'm drinking a complimentary coffee right now and it tastes like a goat's behind.

 

Now how would you know how that tastes?

[David Nahmani]

You know one of the best examples of free service (that outdates the internet by a fair margin)? International post. If I put the correct postage on something and send it to the US, the US postal service delivers it on trust, without receiving a penny for it. It's also a non-hierarchical structure to boot.

That's not free though: it takes money to operate a post office and to pay postmen, and that money comes from the taxpayers. So that service is not any more free than, say, highway constructions or public schools.

 

Here's a better example of a free service: the world wide web. Not internet access: you still have to pay an ISP to access the network, but the technology behind the world wide web. Berners-Lee did not receive a penny for inventing the URL, http and html technologies. The whole wide world is using those technologies every single ms of every single day and its inventor is not receiving any kind of royalties for it - although I guess you could argue that he was a government worker when he invented it.

[Rev. Juda Sleaze]

You know one of the best examples of free service (that outdates the internet by a fair margin)? International post. If I put the correct postage on something and send it to the US, the US postal service delivers it on trust, without receiving a penny for it. It's also a non-hierarchical structure to boot.

That's not free though: it takes money to operate a post office and to pay postmen, and that money comes from the taxpayers. So that service is not any more free than, say, highway constructions or public schools.

 

Obviously "free" was a bad choice of word. But I would disagree that it is the same as building roads or schools. It is a system of trust that has no regulatory body, and it works very well. That was my point.

 

Here's a better example of a free service: the world wide web. Not internet access: you still have to pay an ISP to access the network, but the technology behind the world wide web. Berners-Lee did not receive a penny for inventing the URL, http and html technologies. The whole wide world is using those technologies every single ms of every single day and its inventor is not receiving any kind of royalties for it - although I guess you could argue that he was a government worker when he invented it.

 

Lots of inventors have never seen any benefit from their inventions. In fact, many employees sign over intellectual property rights when they sign their employment contract - I knew someone who worked for AEG (the company that made the Nazi's ovens), and according to their contract, anything they invented whilst working for AEG became the intellectual property of AEG. It wouldn't suprise me if their was a similar stipulation in Berners-Lee contract.

 

But, as for the WWW, see my earlier post about VeriSign and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. They pretty much decides what happens as far as architecture of the web goes.

[Nublu]

First off, we're just talking here. I wish for a productive conversation not because I am right or wrong, but because it's important. I'm gonna dig in on this one.

And I'm not sure that the larger issues have been adequately identified.

I am good with that.

 

Yup, it's all about the money, and putting a boatload of it into the pockets of the people who create the content

It looks like you've narrowed the focus to the exclusion of all the inadequately identified larger issues.

And potential opportunities.

 

Because something is free in no way devalues it. Assigning a price to something in no way gives it value. Price and Value are not synonymous terms. Prices are often set around cost based considerations, or appreciation based considerations, and lots of times in an exploitive non-negotiation scenario (scarcity marketing, or what one might find discussed in Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent").

The relationship between value and price has garnered a lot of prosperity, and in the hands of those who feel they are clever by gaming the system, produced a lot of negative effects and consequences.

This statement "it's all about the money, and putting it into the pockets of the people who create...." could also include,

create and exploit armed conflicts,

create drugs,

create graft,

create environmental catastrophies,

create banking fraud,

create anti-trust monopolies,

etc.

Because it's all about the money.....

Our collective values tend to transcend the mere price of something. In spite of the message of various corporate propaganda machines. At least that is my actual street experience.

 

So how do we get a fair price.

I'm gonna start with my Audience.

[ski]

"it's all about the money, and putting it into the pockets of the people who create it..."

 

Yup. Talking about the arts, and how the output of artisans of all kinds, particularly those who create something which can be digitally disseminated all too easily, and don't reap any benefit because of it. Perfect example: some guy makes a video against a track I played on and puts it up on YouTube. The video gets thousands of hits. I'm not seeing any royalties from that, though if actual CD's were sold (or the music was legitimately obtained from a digital download service) I'd see some ducats. However, I'm seeing zilch.

 

Considering how many records I've played on over the years that someone has posted up on YouTube, I'm getting ripped off on a regular basis.

[Phrase]

I'm not going to delve into "how" just yet, so let's talk about it in broader terms... This entire situation is a sociological problem moreso than a technological one. The idea of giving away anything for free devalues every single one of those things. Music, art, photography, fonts, plugins, the all have very little value now because so many people have subscribed to the idea that giving things away for free is a good thing.

 

... & speaking in broader terms ...

.

"… P2P'eed 2 Death …

.

For a moment, let us consider P2P downloading of 'free' audio files, as a social behavior, … acts of mass consumption in the 'digital wild west'.

.

The emaciated condition of independent music content creators, could be considered as 'collateral damage', … exacerbated by the actions of conditioned audio obese addicts … desensitized and unconcerned with subtler issues, … suspended in the herd.

.

To put this in context, … the advertising, public relations, persuasion, spin industry has recieved billions from business to mold the 'mass consumer psyche' in this very material corporate world. ...

In relation to P2P, … if the consumer is enabled to acquire something 'intangible' without cost, … their money can now go to where the dominant power brokers point.

.

The toll booths to the digital clouds are going up fast. … Consumers of the intangible content will need to buy binary ladder builders to stream content. … Industry power lobbies are focused on channeling the masses to access those content containing clouds. … The money saved from purchasing content will go towards buying the necessary hardware and 'personalized' software necessary for access to their 'stars' … ladders to the clouds.

.

If the content of the digital pipes was gasoline, … do you think it would be 'free-share tank fills' ! … Independent creative artists lobbying power at the table is barely audible.

.

To put this in socio-cultural context, … lets introduce another aspect. … We've all heard of the legislated 'fiduciary' obligation of corporations to maximize short term profits while externalizing costs.

.

The idea of long term sustainability and moderation of scale is not recognized in the prevailing business paradigm. … These are issues evaluated in terms of recognizing the moral and ethical dimensions of the situation. … Fiduciary obligations are devoid of a social conscience. … We should not expect the movers and shakers of the virtual wild west to act in a comprehensively considered, principled, ethical, moral manner. … More and more, … we see that our elected representatives are captured by corporate concerns.

.

This does not mean that we should be despondent. Rather, each of us, as members in life's social experiment, … must embrace and embody the moral and ethical fundamentals which … lift the experience of life from the mundane.

.

I fully agree and appreciate David Lowery's soulful post ! …

.

Let's hope that the P2P 'eed 'free' file sharing behaviour can be enlightened, and relegated to being a sign post in the rearview mirror.

.

But nurturing a consumer culture which recognizes 'more' in 'less', is antithetical to today's hyped business model. … Metaphorically speaking, the 'pimps' for the rapacious audio obese consumers exist on multiple levels in this networked world. It will be difficult to introduce moral and ethical dimensions to the 'click' here choice.

.

As David Lowery articulated "Emily from NPR", … it is not up to governments to provide the template for our future. … It is up to each one of us to be collectively engaged, … to mindfully reframe the cultural paradigm … to be proud of what we bequeath to future generations.

.

Even though there has been some significant movement, it seems it will take more time to have legislation reflect an evolution beyond the purely monetized corporate controlled design.

.

We, the creators, and consumers, must take on the responsibility of ensuring that the prevailing business models reflect the moral, ethical, and sustainable standards necessary for healthy social communities. … We've been 'puppets' for too long ! "…

… thePhrase, 2012 ...

.......................................

But, bringing the discussion back to technologist's ... design characteristics ... some thoughts from ...

 

"You Are Not A Gadget" Jaron Lanier wrote ...

 

"It is impossible to work with information technology without also engaging in social engineering" p.4

 

" We tinker with your philosophy by direct manipulation of your cognitive experience" p.6

"Therefore, crucial arguments about human relationship with technology should take place between developers and users before direct manipulations are designed" p.6 ...

.

A lot of should 's didn't happen. ... What are the characteristics of Web 2.0 ? ... How do those characteristics hold behaviour ? ... What is this 'provenance model' , and why would things be different ? ... till later ... oh, anyone closer to a copy of the book ? ... oh well ...

[ski]

Fiduciary obligations are devoid of a social conscience. …

 

Likewise, social conscience is devoid of fiduciary obligations when it comes to the "wild west" nature of the web, p2p the bent of those who make available non-remunerated uses of other people's intellectual property.

 

Let's hope that the P2P 'eed 'free' file sharing behaviour can be enlightened, and relegated to being a sign post in the rearview mirror.

 

Agreed. I'd vie for "obliterated" rather than "enlightened", but that's just me...

 

[Nublu]

Considering how many records I've played on over the years that someone has posted up on YouTube, I'm getting ripped off on a regular basis.

Point taken. We have the right to have youtube pull stuff down.

But also part of the problem I encounter at youtube is that I cannot always distinquish between those who wish to post freely, those who are posting freely for promotional purposes, those, like yourself, who find out something has been posted without your consent, and those who are glad it is there but they want to monetize it, and limit it to that.

 

 

I'm going the next step and asking the question...

What's my audience saying?

 

I may not like the answer.

 

And part of the message in my opinion, is that they didn't like the status quo.

A huge number of people don't want their interaction with other people deemed property. They also don't want their expressions filtered through the "ownership/permission/agenda system". They don't want to be viewed as a market segment, or a demographic, or any dehumanizing term. They may want to be free of format radio, format television, etc.etc. In other words, they found a way to not be dictated to, interupted, pushed, etc., and they like it.

The situation has changed, - or evolved - whatever the words are. It probably isn't going back.

 

I know there are good people in the industry as it has been in the last 30yrs.... I am not slagging on anyone. It is an Industry that gave me my Horowitz and "friends" Collection, my Pat Metheny and "friends" Collection. Awesome does not describe it. I am looking for a way forward.

[David Nahmani]

Considering how many records I've played on over the years that someone has posted up on YouTube, I'm getting ripped off on a regular basis.

Point taken. We have the right to have youtube pull stuff down.

Ski, in the U.S., do performers receive royalties when a record containing said performance is aired, say, on TV or radio?

[ski]

David,

 

On Union recording sessions, yes, royalties can accumulate in several ways, including re-use fees, the Special Payments Fund, and mechanicals, performance royalties on those tracks on which I was a songwriter. In fact, there's a company in the UK that sends me nice lil' royalty payments twice a year from continued sales of UK-based records I played on, as well as sales of an apparently still popular DVD from a live concert at which I performed on (and was also the M.D.)

 

Nublu, the idea that fans of an artist, or in some cases, of my work in particular are keen to post things on YouTube (et al) is certainly flattering, and despite my cynical side, I'm not so jaded as to imagine that their collective motives are disingenuous. Just the other day someone wrote to me out of the blue to let me know that material I worked on for a particular artist had been posted online. It was all never-should-have-reached-the-public stuff, but there it was. And I must say, it was a joy for me to relive that music again. But there is a business side to the music business which is easily overlooked -- if not innocently so -- by exuberant fans who just want to share their joy of music, but therein lies the rub... lots of lesser artists and behind-the-scenes guys don't reap any benefits from free dissemination of stuff they've worked on, though they would vis a vis actual sales and commercial channels.

 

I'm reminded of how IMDB's staff research every submission to see if it's legitimate before adding a credit to someone's online filmography. Sometimes it takes days or weeks before a credit is added. I wonder, then, why Google with all of its tremendous resources can't mitigate the uploading of copyrighted materials in a similar manner. And because they do not (or at least not that I'm aware of), I see them as one of the biggest culprits in this situation... They provide an uninhibited pathway for undermining the value of copyrights for music, video and film. Sure, they have a "grievance board" and will remove content if objection is raised. But they have, in my opinion, a moral obligation to prevent the violation from occurring in the first place.

 

Sorry, gonna get off my soap box now. But thanks sincerely for responding to my posts and for indulging my viewpoints.

[David Nahmani]

On Union recording sessions, yes, royalties can accumulate in several ways, including re-use fees, the Special Payments Fund, and mechanicals, performance royalties on those tracks on which I was a songwriter. In fact, there's a company in the UK that sends me nice lil' royalty payments twice a year from continued sales of UK-based records I played on, as well as sales of an apparently still popular DVD from a live concert at which I performed on (and was also the M.D.)

I know you get performance royalties as a songwriter but I was wondering about the status of royalties when you're purely a performer but not a writer - just played keyboard, didn't have any creative input other than maybe your keyboard part (if you've had such a situation).

 

As a songwriter, don't you have the recourse of contacting YouTube and asking them to remove the video?

[ski]

Hi David, yes, maybe it wasn't clear from the above, but I mentioned that on Union sessions (as keyboard player, or, on TV performances where I was on camera) I would stand to collect re-use payments and payments from the Special Payments fund.

[David Nahmani]

Thanks for the clarification, ski, you're right, I wasn't too sure how to interpret the first sentence in your previous post.

 

Given that information, would it makes sense to ask your union to start collecting re-use payments from YouTube and the likes? Or does the legislation still have to catch up in those areas?

 

BTW not sure if that came thru in my posts but I wanted to share that personally, I completely share your frustration (for lack of a worse word ).

[Nublu]

Hi Ski, you wrote

But there is a business side to the music business which is easily overlooked -- if not innocently so -- by exuberant fans who just want to share their joy of music, but therein lies the rub... lots of lesser artists and behind-the-scenes guys don't reap any benefits from free dissemination of stuff they've worked on, though they would vis a vis actual sales and commercial channels.

Which is why I think the discussion is important.

My intuitions tell me we are on the edge of something cool, but I haven't wrapped my mind around it.... or perhaps identified clearly what they are saying. Which is another reason I engage the discussion.

Thanks

 

'scuse me, I have to go make goo-goo eyes with the Muse.

[ski]

Thanks for your replies Nublu and David. Nublu, I totally agree that a discussion is important. I hope I didn't give a different impression.

 

OK, here's an example of how "broadcast" of a video is problematic... Here's something I did many years ago. You'll note the year in the YouTube video title...

 

 

I put this band together to play behind Madonna for live performances of two songs on SNL. (The sync in this video is atrocious, but what you'll hear was 100% live). I was the MD, arranger, synth programmer, and keyboard player and appeared on-camera (you can see me downstage, stage left (in the corner, basically) at about 3:30 into the video ). Anyway, this video has had about 195K hits since it was put up. If this were broadcast on a network, I'd be seeing some Union re-use payments -- a form of additional remuneration that comes from re-broadcasts of a Union-signatory network (and production house) such as NBC. But here, someone has lifted the video (somehow) and posted it free and clear.

 

Yeah, I admit that it's a blast to be able to look back so many years, see myself without gray hair, and hear what a slammin' groove Omar Hakim and Victor Bailey laid down on this tune. But I'd also like to see a check... Oh, and the check probably wouldn't be much money at all, maybe 50, 100 bucks. But multiply this by all the other things myself and other musicians and artists have done and... well, you get the picture.

 

Meanwhile, enjoy the video. Madonna tore it up! Oh, and so did the band!

[Rev. Juda Sleaze]

These are big corporations that are letting this happen though.

 

I think it's a convenient myth for the companies profiting from this that they are powerless to stop it.

 

If people have a choice of paying for something, or geting it for free, many won't be opening their wallets any time soon. Imagine if stores had no security guards, and the punishment for shoplifting was receiving a letter telling you to stop shoplifting, and the maximum penalty was being banned from the store. What do you think would happen to the theft figures? I don't think we can solve the greed of humans, or their ability to make excuses for their behaviour..

 

And getting back to the advertising companies and torrent sites; even though it's mostly sleazy companies who advertise on them, presumably there's ad agencies who broker those deals? And they most likely are the same companies that broker ad deals for legitimate sites and respectable companies as well?

 

Follow the money again... If companies are doing something, it's because there's profit in it.

 

And what are the unions doing to stand up for their member's legal rights?

[David Nahmani]

Loving the haircut ski! (thanks for sharing, great interpretation of a classic - and good job on recruiting an incredible team!!)

[Phrase]

I'm not going to delve into "how" just yet, so let's talk about it in broader terms...

 

Hi: ... although not addressing the subject of the impact of Web design characteristics on the economic health of the content creators ... this pdf may be of interest ... and is accessible to all ... just for the sake of expanding the discussion parameters to explore more fully as mentioned by ' ski ' ...

.

Dissertation ...

 

" THE CREATIVE DESTRUCTION OF THE " WINNER-TAKE-ALL " SOCIETY ? ... PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE ECONOMICS OF THE LONG TAIL IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY " Submitted by Ian Strachan ... Department of Economics ... Colorado State University

.

http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8xMTQyMzg=.pdf

 

from dissertation, p.122 ...

 

" A. Problem and Hypotheses … The recorded music industry is in free fall because of a market failure: recorded music is not a private good because rivalness and excludability have vanished. Property rights over recorded music – and other creative content in other industries – have been demolished. Many observers believe that nascent and less-known artists and bands presently benefit from the new democratized and decentralized marketplace. This new economic reality is being touted because it fosters niches and little- known bands/artists and therefore meets more diverse consumer tastes because middlemen and intermediaries are out of the supply chain. But are consumers’ tastes really that diverse? Should producers and retailers cater to the idea that the public demands more variety? After all, this requires changes in business strategies, which is costly and risky. Have these recent changes in technology altered the ‘winner-take-all’ society and provided opportunity for a ‘new artistic middle class’?" ... Ian Strachan

[ski]

Loving the haircut ski!

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know... I know... **Sigh** sometimes I wonder if I'm revealing a few too many personal details on the forum just to make a point...

 

:lol:

 

(thanks for sharing, great interpretation of a classic - and good job on recruiting an incredible team!!)

 

Thanks so much man! The basic vibe was based on a version that was (I believe) on her then-current album. The name escapes me. But man, the way that Victor laid down that bassline, it made the whole song sound somewhat futuristic, almost "out" yet "in" and untouchably cool, all at the same time.

 

@ Phrase, thanks for the link. I'll have a look.

[Nublu]

Thanks for posting the vid Ski. I enjoyed it immensely... as I did the night that episode aired. The Audience on SNL always seemed easy and fun. Madonna's smile struck me with this viewing, like it did the first time.

I used to wonder who did her arrangements..... I certainly never guessed I would one day talk to you. And on a thing called the internet.

That night, ( in 93) I had just finished reading some translations of the Persian Mystic Poets, Maulana Rumi, Kwaja Hafiz Shirazi, Shams Tabriz. ( I was going through a read everything that might teach me something "phase"). That performance (and episode) capped a really good evening for me. Thankyou.

 

So approx 20 yrs. ago I merely wonder who does Madonna's arrangements and ... I'll be darned..

Let's try another one... " I wonder how we can get Ski his moola - youtube and others"... hmm.... "maybe a bit sooner than 20yrs."...

[ski]

Thanks for posting the vid Ski. I enjoyed it immensely... as I did the night that episode aired. The Audience on SNL always seemed easy and fun. Madonna's smile struck me with this viewing, like it did the first time.

I used to wonder who did her arrangements..... I certainly never guessed I would one day talk to you. And on a thing called the internet.

That night, ( in 93) I had just finished reading some translations of the Persian Mystic Poets, Maulana Rumi, Kwaja Hafiz Shirazi, Shams Tabriz. ( I was going through a read everything that might teach me something "phase"). That performance (and episode) capped a really good evening for me. Thankyou.

 

So approx 20 yrs. ago I merely wonder who does Madonna's arrangements and ... I'll be darned..

Let's try another one... " I wonder how we can get Ski his moola - youtube and others"... hmm.... "maybe a bit sooner than 20yrs."...

 

Cool!

 

Not to take the thread too OT, but I'd like to reply to your comments...

 

Madonna was indeed very happy that evening. Even her manager at the time (Freddie Demann) commented to me (and I'm paraphrasing here) that he hadn't ever seen her that happy. At the end of the second song we played, she thanked the band on-air, something Freddie also mentioned to me, saying that "she never does that." So for me it was a proud moment and musically transcendental in its own way.

 

Indeed, there is always someone behind the scenes who arranges Madonna (and other artist's) music for live performance, whether it's a TV show or a live gig. That's the job of the M.D. (musical director, for those unfamiliar with the term). In this case, my job was to try and reproduce the sound of two songs from her record but all with live players, dole out parts, shape the performance, etc. I'm pretty sure I took some liberties here and there with the arrangement (as is my way), though I don't recall all the details as it was some time ago. But I remember wanting to ensure that every iconic sound from the recordings was represented live in some way. I even convinced Bashiri, who normally just played hand percussion, to play certain parts using foot triggers which we had specially designed for the gig instead of "taking the easy way out" and sequencing them. It was a lot of fun trying to pull all that off.

 

Anyway, that's enough about me. I'm glad to know details of what you had going on that night. Seems like it was a good night for all of us!

 

And now, back to the topic at hand...

 

Best Regards,

 

Ski

[ski]

Property rights over recorded music – and other creative content in other industries – have been demolished.

 

Property rights haven't changed. Rather, license to tread on them has triumphed.

 

Should producers and retailers cater to the idea that the public demands more variety?

 

I acknowledge that he's asking a rhetorical question, but I'm always wary whenever someone refers to 'what the public demands'. The public is, after all, a vast collection of individuals; it's true that many of them share similar musical tastes and expectations. But no two people are exactly alike in this regard, so, considering the sheer number of musical styles, sub-genres, and long history of musical composition that may suit any one person's fancy, the academic can only fail in trying to assess and quantify what "the public" demands.

 

Furthermore, the public rarely demands anything, as the public at large is not, generally speaking, an organized force for change even on a small level. You might get the occasional customer asking the manager at Trader Joe's to do a better job at supplying riper pears when they're out of season, but certainly people don't assemble en masse at the customer service counter to "demand" more edible fruit. Now, I don't work at a grocery store so I don't truly know how much feedback they get such as to be able to quantify what "customer demand" is. But I'll be darned if I've ever seen a line form outside of the manager's office at a grocery store to voice their "demands".

 

So it's rarely ever "what the public demands". It's more akin to "what the public gets used to", and how disenfranchised they can be made to feel on even the smallest of scales.

[Phrase]

Hi Ski: ... firstly , ... thanx for sharing the video , ... very COOL ! ... great job ... & the relevance was direct .

 

I have time for just a quick passing remark to your initial comments on Ian Strachan's dissertation ...

 

So it's rarely ever "what the public demands". It's more akin to "what the public gets used to", and how disenfranchised they can be made to feel on even the smallest of scales.

 

I agree. Strachan may well agree. ... Further, i may have been over the top when i wrote in "P2P'eed 2 Death" ...

 

The emaciated condition of independent music content creators, could be considered as 'collateral damage', … exacerbated by the actions of conditioned audio obese addicts … desensitized and unconcerned with subtler issues, … suspended in the herd.

.

To put this in context, … the advertising, public relations, persuasion, spin industry has recieved billions from business to mold the 'mass consumer psyche' in this very material corporate world. ...

...

 

Ski, to put those thoughts in context, i was reading Stuart Ewen's work ... such as "PR ! A Social History Of Spin" : ... trying to grasp what is meant by the idea that ... we have moved from a print based culture to a visual based culture ... which furthers the impact of advertising and propaganda.

.

Returning to topic, Lanier further identifies that technological design in and of itself conditions mass behaviour; ... the 'hive mind' ... furthering drive-by trolls, anonymity , socially destructive mind sets ... etc. To me Lanier is trying to educate us as to the impact of Web 2.0's technological design characteristics on social engineering. ... Music and the well being of content creators is a tiny aspect of the terrain Lanier encompasses in "You Are Not A Gadget" ...

.

Ski, if the video you posted represents an 'object' ... which has become divorced from the originating source , or representatives of ... asserting rights for the originator(s) ... then the source is hung up to dry ... obfuscated into oblivion ... certainly not remunerated ... !

.

If, however the technological design characteristics where built from the ground up, ... such that the 'source' was the base from which all subsequent representations were linked ... the provenance ... the source ... would be maintained. ... So technology could be designed to do that . ... But, we, the people of the culture must direct the design. ... You know where this line of thought goes.

.

At this stage, the idea stage, the assimilation of those ideas takes some time. For me, i realized how important those concepts were upon second reading of Lanier's book. ... So the real discussion is very broad and inter-disciplinary. For me, Lanier's thoughts are sort of threads tying in the role and importance of technologists, their designs, ... etc. ... as another level of furthering the characteristics of the prominent ideology ... You may recall that earlier in the thread there was a discussion of how Web 2.0 is feudalistic . ... You may agree ? ...

.

... This issue is so huge and multi-faceted, It takes time to built the 'shared understanding' . ...

 

But now going back to the beginning of this 'brief ' ramble ... I thought Strachan's dissertation provided a lot of important information about the 'playing field' as seem from different perspectives . ... I have not completed reading it yet.

.

... thanx ... good to converse with you Ski , and et al ! ... cheers ... phrase

[Nublu]

Everyday I exit my studio for a couple of hrs. so that I can talk to living, breathing, dragon slaying, time constrained, sometimes struggling, sometimes massively successful, wallet carrying, people. I observe:

People actually like us.

People don't mind paying as much as the media hyperbole freaks suggest.... but...

The perceptions people have around data linked transaction systems are poisoned. Data Breaches, Credit Card Leaks, Dude in some company selling the information to god knows who ... on and on ... The transaction experience is associated with all manner of fear based innuendo. “Those perpetrating crimes will never be held accountable .. but it will cost the costumer”. “A person is being tracked and monitored so that advertisers and possibly 3 letter government “agencies” or their “contractors” (posing as advertisers to side step the law) - can continue to intrude into pretty much every aspect of your life except the ones they haven't thought of yet”. Don't forget targeted price fixing as the information gets linked to bank accounts, purchasing and payment patterns. The message, “ you the customer are stupid, vulnerable, and probably a criminal", "it is not a matter of if but when, and you will have no recourse, to address wrongs - Hey you're not s'posed to flip me the bird".

A lot of people suck it up, because they do like us. They might be hoping for something worthwhile, maybe memorable, or even just delightful...... but still

It is easier to avoid that transaction experience than continually be upset by it ... It is one component that needs to be addressed.