ASCAP declares war on Free Culture

[KrazyKatz]

I don't get this. I put out serious arguments, some in-depths analysis and you are telling me that because people don't pay for music that means they don't value music?

I hope you were joking. Really. Otherwise I don't think any fruitful discussion is possible here.

I said people don't value music like they used to.

Go to the older generations houses and have a look at their old LP collections. You'll see stacks of em. They'll have a story to tell about each one. They will look at them and smile with memories. Music was a big part of everyone's life.

Nowadays people don't even know the names of the titles or even artists they have on their Ipods. Without doubt people do not appreciate music like they used to.

The simplicity to copy and lack of requirement to make a financial commitment devalues music in more ways then we think.

I don't know why everyone looks at themselves as the prime example of how everyone behaves. This is a music forum. Obviously we all appreciates music here. Instead look at your average teenager.

[Saga Musix]

KrazyKatz, not everyone back then was a music enthusiast (there sure were a lot of people who didn't value music at all), and also not everyone today listens to their music on an iPod on the go. It's rather that listening to music is much more common these days, and there's technology that leads to changes in the way people listen to music. Not everyone is an audiophile and that was the same "back in the days". Generalization is the wrong way to argue about something like this.

[uncloned]

another reason to get rid of the record companies and self release



http://www.theroot.com/views/how-much-do-you-musicians-really-make?GT1=38002


and then a deeper analysis

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn't mean Warner "lost" nearly $400,000 on the band. That's how much they spent on us, and we don't see any royalty checks until it's paid back, but it doesn't get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band's share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let's say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.

[Louigi Verona]

You know, Chris, looking at how intellectual property works, I was astonished to see that when it is brought up, it never is used for its proposed purpose, it is always used as a cover up of something else. It's never about intellectual property, its always used to defend some other property.

An example is Irish dance competitions. Recently I've been on one and they caught someone filming the dances (they did not caught me, hehe). And they started a big hassle out of it, saying that you cannot film dances because they are copyrighted intellectual property.
In reality I was told they don't want dances filmed because judges might be compromised - they don't want people to analyse dances relative to their decisions afterwards and conclude that they made a misjudgement of a good dance.
As usual, the covering up was done with IP.

Same in music. It is never about "defending the artist". Never.