Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
steal this book/movie/song.
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Food for thought 1: Inheritance

cyberpainter wrote:


If I have money I should be able to give or leave it to who I choose. Why should some stranger have more right to someone's money than one's own family? Capitalism doesn't reject wealth without effort which is the basis for your argument. That is false. It's based on getting whatever the market will bear. Effort plays very little part in worth.


Good point. It is true that capitalism as it stands with socialist input and an incredibly invasive state does allow laziness and inheritance.
I suppose I am asking capitalists to think of the justification for the capitalist state in a world of limited resources. It usually revolves around some kind of theory that creating or labouring entitles one to own the products of their work. Capitalism generally comes up with a theory of just acquisition that is based on labour. It can only be sold at "whatever the market will bear" when you have justly acquired it. If not based on labour, then what?

May 31, 2010, 08:06


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Food for thought 3: fair pay

cyberpainter wrote:
We don't pay people much. They're mass produced, so albums and movies don't cost much. When they aren't mass produced, like individual works of art, they are priced higher of course.


Well, we pay a lot more per record to the artist than we do to the grower of coffee beans or a sugar farmer. Take timber, People labour all day in the forest, chop the trees down and ship them off to anywhere in the world. The return on a tonne of wood is next to nothing and the worker gets barely enough to put a roof over his head. Now, it is good to see artists getting enough to get by but the simple balance may need to shift. Maybe even the world's top musicians, like the world's best farmers (the people not corporations), the world's best teachers and the world's best lumberjacks may simply have to accept that producing a commodity will no longer enable them to live in anything but a 3 bedroom house in the burbs next to the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.
Of course, I could be wrong and people who make a mountain of money off CD sales may fight for their right to continue to make millions off the sale of a song. It is a fight they may win but evidence seems to be contrary to this. Millions are "stealing" off them right now and the stars seem to be losing the battle. But they may win.

May 31, 2010, 08:18


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Food for thought 3: fair pay

to continue, I guess people are saying CDs are too much by illegally downloading them.
The best solution that I have seen is artists selling the music themselves straight off the web. No need for sleeve designers, jewel cases or big labels. And the price is often right.

May 31, 2010, 10:06


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5940 posts

Re: Food for thought 3: fair pay

People keep writing on here about these stars that make millions. But I believe the smaller less well known artists and musicians, who make up the majority, deserve compensation for their art. Some utopian ideal about the future is great, but mostly I think it's just an excuse to get something for nothing. If you're not willing to go into a store and rip off something and walk out with it, then why do people try to justify downloading stuff for free? I'm not saying I don't do it, but at least I know what it is, and I'm not making some excuse with anti capitalist ramblings. You can have an opinion about how much an artist or a teacher should earn for a living, but if they're undervalued in society, which generally both these examples are, then you may hear about it.

May 31, 2010, 15:57


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5940 posts

Re: Food for thought 3: fair pay

And I think it's a shame about the fall of album cover art, which had to happen with the change in media, but still it's sad and was a big blow to visual artists. Yes, most music still is available on CD, or shows covers in your media player or whatever, but that's still pretty lame for showing off art with any detail. But the greatest loss was with the different way people are listening to music now. Personally, I still mostly listen to whole albums, which probably makes me a dinosaur.

May 31, 2010, 16:04


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

GaryB
GaryB
1554 posts

Re: Food for thought 3: fair pay

Dinosauress, surely? :)

May 31, 2010, 19:53


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Stereo Mouse
Stereo Mouse
635 posts

Re: steal this book/movie/song.

My two cents to this whole debate.

First off, music IS a luxury. It's not that we really need to listen to any kind of music to survive, far from it. There's no reason person X should absolutely need a Stereolab CD, there's no reason person Y should absolutely need a Sonic Youth CD. But those, and some other bands, have been lucky that some have chosen to buy their CDs anyway. This is an important reality to consider, when we discuss the issue of compensation for art. Some musicians have made a mistake of expecting that they could ever make a living with music. But like Zappa said, "don't expect anything and if you get something, it's a bonus".

Thus, earning a living for music, even in the halcyon days of vinyl records, has always been a craps shoot for majority of artists. For every semi-successful Frank Zappa you had some bands whose albums were never promoted that much at all and who sold miserably and wound up in debt and had to sell off their instruments and quit making music altogether. We somehow take for granted how seemingly easy it was to survive as a musician in these great old days, but not everyone made it. And it's depressing, very very depressing to think of the bands who failed miserably.

(continued in the next post, but that's because I deem that it's easier to break it in two parts)

May 31, 2010, 21:02


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Stereo Mouse
Stereo Mouse
635 posts

Re: steal this book/movie/song.

Another issue: since music is a luxury, how many people CAN afford it to begin with? I, as a musician myself, often get requests a la "can you please add me to your guest list?" when I have a concert coming up. The usual excuse: they have no money. Which is mostly valid, I would presume. There are students out there who only have a negative cash flow and the little money they have at their disposal goes for everything else except the luxuries, they even often have to resort to merely eating cheaply available porridge to stave off hunger. Is it any wonder these people resort to what some people (mainly mr Revox) would rush to call "parasitism"? Should these poor students even forget that music exists in order to pass your ethical integrity tests? I know it's shit that I'm denied a chance to earn something with my own music when most of my listeners are poor students to whom music is a blatant luxury. But I don't think being judgmental really helps.

May 31, 2010, 21:06

Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index