Producers,Payments & PayPall

[Neko]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Must be the folk music influence, but imho how you play a tune matters way more than what tune you play. As such, knowing who wrote a given tune is not important, knowing who plays it, is.

I disagree. If i wrote a tune it is my baby.

[Battler]

- Jesse: But why should you profit endlessly from it while a regular worker needs to keep working to make money?

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Battler

- Jesse: But why should you profit endlessly from it while a regular worker needs to keep working to make money?

The same way your bosses are profiting endlessly from your work.*

* for example in the case you are a programmer, and the company has a software whose rights value is over a million, or a once-upon-a-time-hit game whose franchise can be sold to endless sequels, or movies which are made once and sold as DVDs/Blu-rays forever, etc etc etc

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Jesse

I disagree. If i wrote a tune it is my baby.

*high-five*

And polly, you keep disapointing me. The composer less important than the performer? bad, bad concept. The importance of the performer is simply not to fail, and if lucky, make some contribution of his own, whereas all the geniuses of the composition comes from the composer.

[xesf]

YouTube (Short URL)

[Battler]

Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist

The same way your bosses are profiting endlessly from your work.*

* for example in the case you are a programmer, and the company has a software whose rights value is over a million, or a once-upon-a-time-hit game whose franchise can be sold to endless sequels, or movies which are made once and sold as DVDs/Blu-rays forever, etc etc etc

My stance is the same there too. Why should a programmer make one program once and profit from it endlessly? Make everyone do actual work to earn their living, be it composing, programming, or acting...

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Battler

My stance is the same there too. Why should a programmer make one program once and profit from it endlessly? Make everyone do actual work to earn their living, be it composing, programming, or acting...

I see. Well I think we're just in an unfair world.


Also, tbh, the whole problem has to do with mass consumption and mass producing of things, like shown in the "Story of Stuff" video (on youtube). Toolong;didn'twatch: We produce more than we consume, we throw away a lot of what we consume, we throw away a lot of what we don't consume - we trash the planet, end up frustrated and work to survive.

[Neko]

Originally Posted by Battler

My stance is the same there too. Why should a programmer make one program once and profit from it endlessly? Make everyone do actual work to earn their living, be it composing, programming, or acting...

Battler the only way someone keeps profiting is if people keep buying it. It is hardly possible to make a decent buck for composing anyway. Mike oldfield composed tubular bells and it sold 16 million times. Seems reasonable to give the artist at least a million bucks for something so wanted.

If you would do the communist system and give everyone the same you take away the drive to make something happen, to excel. Not saying you would want that, but i have no idea how you would implement your idea practically.

[Battler]

- Jesse: No offense, Mozart profited almost nothing from his music and still excelled. If you need to earn tons of money to excel, then you have no passion, whatsoever.
What makes you are entitled to any earning above the minimum wage? You are entitled to the minimum wage, and even that for working every day, not working maybe 5 days in your whole life and making thousands a month for the rest of your life without lifting a finger. And anything above the minimum wage is a privilege, not a right.
Also, you don't need to make thousands of € a month to survive...

Originally Posted by Jesse

Seems reasonable to give the artist at least a million bucks for something so wanted.

Then it also seems reasonable to give the police officer at least a million bucks for putting such a wanted criminal behind the bars. Yet noone would dare support that... so why do you think you have the right to earn more than said officer even though he risks much more?

But really, the current system favors one hit wonders much more than it favors artists that make several good songs that are not necessarily hits.
Yes, of course if you have an extraordinary talent and compose something truly awesome, you should earn some more (but note, SOME more, not hundreds of millions), but why the heck does, say, Justin Bieber, have the right to earn millions for stuff he hasn't even composed, and he couldn't even perform without resorting to Auto-Tune.

Right now, the one who earns more is the one who partakes in the making a more popular product, even if the product is complete cack, while those who make good products but are not popular simply because the big industry has decided the current fad shall be something different and the masses follow that blindly, make much less.
And yes, they still make music. All those unknown metal bands, for example, still seem to be enjoying doing what they like even if they barely make enough to survive. And I in fact admire them more than those who make music just to earn lots, because these kind of less-known musicians tend to make music with real passion.

The software industry is similar. I see better products coming from FOSS these days than from the big corporations. The only reason the big corporations have the majority of the market share is due to inertia and the fact most people are sheep who buy by brand instead of by quality.
However, the big corporations are already learning that demanding tons of money for complete cack results in a flop (just look at Windows 8 and 8.1 for example, and Vista and Millennium years back).

The reason why the music and film industries haven't come to the same realization is, music CD's and film DVD's cost much less to the consumer than a copy of Windows. Hence why in this case the consumers are much more likely to accept complete cack without complaining.

And Jesse, implementing my idea practically is easy. First, implement a law regularing maximum allowable income and make it so that anything above that has to go to the state. Second, make sure both that law and the law of minimum income specify income limits appropriate for each job ("everyone earns the same sum" is as bad as "some earn almost nothing while some earn billions"), depending on how demanding it is, how risky it is, how much education and/or talent it requires, etc.
Then stipulate that if a composer stops composing for at least X amount of time and is not of minimum pensionable age, he stops receiving income until they start composing again or reach pensionable age. Basically, if a builder has to keep building, then a composer has to keep composing, it's as simple.

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Battler

Basically, if a builder has to keep building, then a composer has to keep composing, it's as simple.

Ugh. Inspiration doesn't work that way.

[Battler]

- SpaceGuitarist: But why should you earn money for doing nothing just because you did one piece of work at some point in the time? What gives you the right to consider yourself above all other people just because you do music instead of, say, paperwork?

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Battler

- SpaceGuitarist: But why should you earn money for doing nothing just because you did one piece of work at some point in the time? What gives you the right to consider yourself above all other people just because you do music instead of, say, paperwork?

Demand and supply.

If:
A) there's 1 person in a 1000 who can make amazing music - but 999 who can make paperwork;
B) this 1 person makes 1 song that sells to 16 million people;
Then: that person granted his right for his big money.

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Battler

Then it also seems reasonable to give the police officer at least a million bucks for putting such a wanted criminal behind the bars. Yet noone would dare support that... so why do you think you have the right to earn more than said officer even though he risks much more?

That's how it worked in the Old West - remember the "WANTED" ads with thousands of dollars rewards?





Well, now society has evolved, albeit risky, being a police officer was that person's choice, and again, it's a demand and supply situation - 500 in a 1000 (or whatever %) could be a police officer. Also, if that police officer does get a wanted criminal he is likely to get a promotion, therefore evolve in his own hierarchy, and get better paid - not everything has to be a matter of "millions".

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Battler

current system favors one hit wonders much more than it favors artists that make several good songs that are not necessarily hits. (...) the one who earns more is the one who partakes in the making a more popular product, even if the product is complete cack (...)

You've answered your own question/critique.

Blame sheep people if the wrong artists/products are being praised.

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Battler

You are entitled to the minimum wage, and even that for working every day, not working maybe 5 days in your whole life and making thousands a month for the rest of your life without lifting a finger.

Artists are fewer than labourers, since we need food and stuff more than we need music and art.

However, food and stuff are perishable whereas art is immortal. You work one day of your life - but your work will last forever, and can be used infinitely, and can be shared to everyone. Thus you can earn endlessly from it, too, as long as people still want it. It all makes sense, really.

[Neko]

He earned the right if 16 million people buy it.
Lets turn it around : what gives the state the right to that extra money I earned?

If I have a song you can buy for a dollar and you have a million buyers, why shouldnt i have the right?

The policeman is in wage labor so he signs up for a salary. An artist sells products, different situation.

Actually being a policeman gives you more certainty in your income.

I think what battler wants is a watered down communism form.

[Neko]

And high five back sgk

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist

And polly, you keep disapointing me.

Hey, this is just the opinion of someone who intends to spend his life playing/searching music... Please don't judge that harshly ideas that are this personal to me and are built on the experiences of the last 17 years of my life after carefull thinking...
edit : What I mean is that this is not some random idealist idea from someone who doesn't know how it works.


The question should be split in two here, the license (which enables someone to get royalty payment for what he did), and the copyright (which makes a music piece the propriety of someone).
I have the feeling that Battler is mainly against licensing, I didn't see him speaking about copyright (with the meaning above).

This is a common point of view, as the ones who benefit from a license are mostly producers/distributors, and a license is what forbids downloading music.

I for myself am more uncommon, being against copyright aswell. Can you imagine how a dance night in a village would be ?
"Hey you travelling musician, play that awesome tune we always danced to here before our previous musician died !"
"Sorry I can't, his son won't let me."

SGK, you say "However, food and stuff are perishable whereas art is immortal. You work one day of your life - but your work will last forever, and can be used infinitely, and can be shared to everyone."
Why wait until you die to do so ? Why not share it and let everyone use it while you're still alive ?

[Battler]

Originally Posted by Jesse

An artist sells products, different situation.

Actually, in the current system, an artist doesn't sell products, he just sells licenses to use his products.

Originally Posted by Jesse

Lets turn it around : what gives the state the right to that extra money I earned?

If I have a song you can buy for a dollar and you have a million buyers, why shouldnt i have the right?

Hence, why you'd still earn more than someone whose work has very few buyers. Just not millions.
And in my system, the state would be controlled by an execute body that would be directly democratically elected, therefore it would have rights to the money by virtue of having been elected by you to represent you.
In addition, the money would go to maintaining roads, railroads, schools, hospitals, feeding the people in need, etc. I'd say that's a much more noble thing to invest your extra earnings in than a Ferrari for yourself that noone else would benefit from.
Honestly, you're basically telling me your individual desires and rights are more important than the society in general. You'd rather have material benefits for yourself than your earnings being used to help everyone. Is that not selfish?

Also, the mere fact you're only composing to get something in return and the act of doing something for someone per se means nothing to you, speaks volumes about you as a person.
When I do things I like, whatever they are, my main reason to do it is self-fulfillment and the pleasure of doing it. And if they become liked by many people, I'm honored by that. And I'm honored by that enough that I don't need to earn money for that. Maybe just enough to cover whatever costs I incurred, but that's about it.
Hence why I'd also, for example, if I really wanted to make money from something, do it via a Donate button rather than Buy. That way I make clear I consider said money a privilege I'm asking to be granted, rather than right I'm asking to be given.

You, however, look to me like the type of person that if you earned even a cent less than you think you're entitled to, you'd send the RIAA or whoever after the "evil pirates" who dared enjoy your work without covering you in money.

Oh and FYI, let me make it clear. If you are profiting or intend to profit from that song, "Silverlight" or whatever it's called (I forgot) that I co-composed (I don't care what you say, I still have my original .NWC files with the background "bells" that I can use as evidence in court should the need arise), I demand an adequate share of the profits (I am content with just 10%). I generally am not the person who cares about money but I do care when someone else is making money on something I contributed to and I get nothing from it.

Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist

However, food and stuff are perishable whereas art is immortal. You work one day of your life - but your work will last forever, and can be used infinitely, and can be shared to everyone. Thus you can earn endlessly from it, too, as long as people still want it. It all makes sense, really.

A building will also last forever (well, until someone demolishes it), yet those involved in building it aren't paid millions even the building will be visited by millions of people. By your logic, those built that building have a right to earn millions too. So why don't they?

Artists are fewer than labourers, since we need food and stuff more than we need music and art.

They are fewer because there are fewer people with the talent to compose than with the talent to cultivate a farm well.
And I do agree income should be proportionate to the type of job, amount of available workforce for said job, etc. But not millions.

Originally Posted by Polaris

The question should be split in two here, the license (which enables someone to get royalty payment for what he did), and the copyright (which makes a music piece the propriety of someone).
I have the feeling that Battler is mainly against licensing, I didn't see him speaking about copyright (with the meaning above).

This is a common point of view, as the ones who benefit from a license are mostly producers/distributors, and a license is what forbids downloading music.

I for myself am more uncommon, being against copyright aswell. Can you imagine how a dance night in a village would be ?
"Hey you travelling musician, play that awesome tune we always danced to here before our previous musician died !"
"Sorry I can't, his son won't let me."

SGK, you say "However, food and stuff are perishable whereas art is immortal. You work one day of your life - but your work will last forever, and can be used infinitely, and can be shared to everyone."
Why wait until you die to do so ? Why not share it and let everyone use it while you're still alive ?

I think some form of copyright must exist, but I am of the opinion modern copyright lasts for way too long, possibly forever if it's given to a corporation. I think copyright should last for maybe 5 years, 10 at most, since the piece of work was made. After that, it's public domain.

This is a common point of view, as the ones who benefit from a license are mostly producers/distributors, and a license is what forbids downloading music.

Hence why I do support a new system of artists directly distributing music without men in the middle, in addition to the above-mentioned reduction in copyright terms. However, I also support income caps, because, let's be honest, why should 1% of the population have 90% of the wealth?

[Polaris]

Musicians that earn several millions while doing nothing are what we are most exposed to, but frankly, they are the exception, and I doubt that they make up more than 1% of the musicians on earth.

I do know that I never composed anything, but I believe interpreting a song your own way and decorating it/improvising the way you want must be close.
Here are some videos to better illustrate what I mean whent I speak about copyright.
Spoiler:

toggle spoiler

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

They all play the same song, yet each interpretation is unique and conveys a different feeling, due to how the musicians was formed and what musical languge they leaned. The tune itself doesn't really matter, only what the musicians are expressing and in what language.

[Battler]

- Polaris: But the tune is the same. So the composer *should* get the recognition that he indeed composed the tune, and ownership of it for a limited period of time.
Though, of course the performer should be entitled to their share too if they so wish.

[Polaris]

Did you listen to the vids ? The tune is the same, but I feel like it hardly matters...

[Battler]

- Polaris: I just did. This is called a different arrangement of the same tune. I don't know in other countries, but at least in my country, when you arrange a tune differently, you are entitled to a third or something of the royalties for the song.

[SpaceGuitarist]

*sigh* I could reply to all your points, yet typing to reply everything is really getting me wearisome. So, I'll be brief, and consider this somewhat my final contribution to this thread.

Battler... honesty, nobleness and honour should not come from laws. It should come from the person.

The example that a 1$ song sold to 1 million people should grant 1 million$ to the musician is totally acceptable. The decision on what to do with this money is entirely up to the musician, and it's not the "state" that should tell him what to do, because the state did not earn that money for him, he did it on his own merit, his own talent, therefore it's his. If he wants to go noble about it it's his characther, his choice, and therefore his own personal gratification. The builders example is not valid, since the builder is just an employee from a company which is likely earning millions with the building (particularly if it's a public structure). Also, this falls into the same category as the paperwork and policemen. As well as all and every such example you give further on with the same logic. Demand and supply, battler, demand and supply.

Now, for something more important.

What you forget is that people are still humans, millionaires or not, and laws won't change that. The point of life, ultimately, are for humans to evolve. Evolve in every aspect but mostly intellectually, morally, spiritually... And whether a person can display how selfish they are being a millionaire, or not, they will remain selfish people, because that's what they are! And this is the real problem. The only important thing is who you are, not the amount of money you have. One day you have it, one day you lose it, but you remain who you are. The state, if anything, should prioritize the evolution of it's citizens, to better human beings, and not "more laws" or "more regulating" or "more restrictions", and by defining these mininum wages and income handicaps all you are doing is levelling the problem downwards.

As for polly... I think the entire "don't mind the composer" thing works mostly for traditional music since most (if not all?) are dead already. If I'm alive, I'm certain I'd like to be remembered for what I did. I do agree however that everyone can make covers of my music without paying copyrights whatsoever, as long as noone claim they have composed them, it's all fine.

[Polaris]

It works with folk music, because who wrote it wasn't important back then, same as for books or anything.
I don't understand what you are saying about the builders, musicians are so to speak the employees of publishers, no ? Except some rare cases, musician don't publish their music, they find a studio to do it for them...
And I also hope to be remembered for what I did, for the music I played.
Don't you pity the classical pianist who, once he played Mozart's turkish march will be forgotten to the benefit of Mozart ? Not to say the composer should be totally forgotten, but if you're listening to music now, it's thanks to the guy sitting behind his piano...

Battler : I'm not speaking about money here (license), my example was only about copyright, the right of a composer to decide who should play the music he wrote and when.