Post I made on Kotaku against a VGC detractor

[dschumm]

ElRhodeo said:

dschumm said:
(more off topic)
I agree with most of your points. But I will say that while I might be sad about the amount of blog based drivel that people push as fact ,most local newspapers would be better staffed with your average blogger. There will always be a demand for the highest quality in journalism, tastes may become more banal but that line has been used about USA Today, TV, Internet, Video Games and everything else. It is the law of supply and demand. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal will survive, but only if they are willing to show up on my computer screen take marketshare from my local paper and from blogs. I think any falling in tastes is compensated by the larger diversity of voices we hear in news, and any prejudice needs to be balanced against the fact that at least people are up front about it now. Anyone can now be a reporter, and I don't need the title of editor in order to tell my opinion.

I am a firm believer that musicians deserve fair compensation but we need to remember copyrights and patents were invented to foster innovation for culture and public good not set up a welfare system. If they were smart they would have had a music download service availble with DRM free music years ago. Where the big losers are in the music industry is the distributors. They want the same money for the same service. Consumers don't have a problem paying money for music, they just don't like the distribution service. It is shameful I can't go to my local big box store click on a kiosk and have it spit out whatever combination of movies an music I want on CD/DVD/Blu-Ray for a fair price. The digital age has made access to things easier so why would a company try to limit how you can give them money?

Yes, the democratization of the media definitely has positive effects as well. As you said, it's fantastic that everybody can get his views across to the people. But when it comes to information, I'd rather read a somewhat "boring" newspaper that sticks to the facts.

What you said about copyrights is interesting, because that is handled very differently in the US and Germany (where I'm from). The German equivalent is called "Urheberrecht", which roughly translates to "creator's right". Other than the copyright, it is part of the human rights, and it is inalienable, e.g. Michael Jackson could never have bought the Beatles' songs like he did in the US. If you wrote a song/book/whatever, it's yours from the moment you created it until you die (and 70 years beyond, for music anyway). So the primary purpose of the Urheberrecht is not "to foster innovation for culture and public good", but to protect your intellectual property.

Anyway, you're right that there's too many people in the music industry to feed, most of which have become more and more obsolete - especially in distribution and fabrication (I still heavily favor Vinyl, but it will inevitably become extinct). After all, we live in the internet age. Technically it is possible to access all songs there ever were from anywhere (and it will be even easier in the future), so any attempt to restrict access is doomed to failure. But how will composers get paid, who will make promotion and all that when running a label becomes completely unprofitable? I really don't know.

 I our courtry the founders of the copyright system invisioned a system where people were rewarded for their creation, and compensated for it, but at the same time they wanted motivation to produce more. A carrot and stick approach that has largely been abandoned by those who think a one-hit wonder should continue paying to the great-great grandchildren. I am not form there but I have read there is a great battle in the UK between thsoe who want to keep copyrights at 50 years or extend them to 100. I favor something similar to the patent system where you are given a period of time(maybe life or 50 years whichever is longer) to make money off of a work, and make derivitive works , but after that it becomes fair use (like classical music or literature) and anyone can perform it or make their own derivitive works. Various archival projects working with the national library and smithonian have run into trouble because may works (particularly early jazz and blues) are still under copyright but they can't locate the possesors fo those rights so they can't make preservation copies. I don't want the grandchildren of 1/10 of 1% of artist demanding payment to cause the rest of the created works to dissapear.

 The way to make money off an infinite product is by giving something the consumers can't or wont do themselves. As concert tickes have gone up you see less artist complain because the music becomes a promotioanl tool to sell those tickets, t-shirts, and fanclub what not.

The record companies have evolved formats not to bring us better fidelity, it has been to make it generally more palatable for consumption. The cd was a revolution but it frailty(which the record companies so enjoyed) is one of it's downfalls. If you stay ahead of the consumer they will flock to you. Now that any old lady can burn dvds companies are desperate to move to high-def formats. They don't really believe the drm is unbeatable, but they know it will be many years untill the ease and cost of copying are in the range of the average consumer.  Music doen't have that luxury becasue sacd and dvd-audio failed to give people additional useability. I am not sure where they go from here but some sort of download and burn station in stores with every song ever released is the first step. If this had appeared 10 years ago with the equivilant online component, I don't know if that would have done it, but it is better than suing your customers. 

Plenty of artist have shown what tech can do. Pearl Jam allows concert goers to buy a copy of the concert the day after they go to it, download it immediately, and have a cd mailed to them. People are still willing ot pay for that even though they have already seen it. CD could easily have gone the multimedia route and returned the longbox with a making-of dvds, videos, concert stills, artwork etc. That was a big selling point for dvds. They charge a $10 premium or more for special edition and people eat those up because they want the difinitive copy. Do I see what with cd? Sometimes but rarely. You could have a random percentage of cds autographed by the artist, you could offer .flac copies of the song on the cd, making of commentary, fan club membership, virtual goods, credit twoards t-shirts or other mechandise.

Competition for the entertainment dollar is high but I refuse to believe that those people who have paid money for music wouldn't continue to pay for the music-related expierience.