|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 14, 2019 15:27:58 GMT -5
So, is the individual humble floppy cheapish comic book format doomed? Are frequencies of weekly, monthly, quarterly going to be irrelevant? These were developed as they were accessible to the young. I see a lot of older people into deluxe hardcover collections and other repackagings available beyond the collector shops, and kids are more liable to come across a trade paperback collection than an individual magazine with a date and lower price on it aside from the Archie digests at the cash register checkout. I fear maybe it is, but then like the old pulp fiction magazines those who love them will savor the memories, and maybe it's leaving is positively an opportunity for some other form to come into existance? Yep! Sure is. Dying now if not outright dead, largely due to multiple internal and external factors. Printed periodicals are dying anyway, and comics in general have too much competition for entertainment dollars while the key audience ages out of it. With sales going down, the publishers are charging more and putting in more and more ads, which drives people away since they can't afford it, so they jack up the prices to compensate..etc etc etc.
Unless some huge company with ludicrously deep pockets, like say Disney who now owns Marvel, decides to subsidize* the cost to allow mass distribution at cheap prices again and just puts them everywhere, I don't see the floppy format having a comeback or longterm survival.
*If they did this, I would think of it more like a marketing and advertising cost instead of actually expecting to make them longterm profitable again
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 14, 2019 15:29:24 GMT -5
I know Amazon can take away your e-books, but that's a proprietary format that requires their software. I can't figure out how they'd take my mp3s without any kind of direct connection to my PC. Yeah, that really is weird. Did you maybe have it in the same folder as their ebooks and they maybe jacked up the folder? |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Nov 14, 2019 15:35:30 GMT -5
People under 40 rarely buy the download. So income from downloads is minimal for artists with a young fan base. Out of curiosity, do you have the source for that? I'm wondering if it is people aren't paying for their downloads, or if they are just not downloading at all and consuming in other ways. There are so many great streaming services now that regular MP3 downloads seem largely unnecessary. It's all of those that has caused sales of music to plummet to a fraction of what they were a generation ago. Legal streaming vs illegal downloads do not have a huge difference; both generate negligible income for the artist. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Nov 14, 2019 15:48:08 GMT -5
I prefer CDs, but I have about a thousand and my shelving unit is almost full. I usually won't pay more than $5 on average for an MP3 album (digital formats should never cost as much as a physical item!) I do love the instant gratification I can get from seeing something I want and buying the download. I think mp3s sound fine as long as the bitrate is high enough. I remember in the earlier days 128kbps was the standard and those do sound awful now, but 320 or variable is good. One thing about the MP3 boom I don't like is that iTunes, Amazon and the like can invade your computer to delete items from your harddrive, you agree to a lot of things with these services and providers, including the ones set up through your library system. Yes, this can happen if you sign up for Apple Music. That's why I only use Apple and Amazon to buy music rather than to manage my MP3 library, which is quite large. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 14, 2019 17:04:25 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, do you have the source for that? I'm wondering if it is people aren't paying for their downloads, or if they are just not downloading at all and consuming in other ways. There are so many great streaming services now that regular MP3 downloads seem largely unnecessary. It's all of those that has caused sales of music to plummet to a fraction of what they were a generation ago. Legal streaming vs illegal downloads do not have a huge difference; both generate negligible income for the artist. Yeah, there is definitely less money in the traditional music industry these days. Concerts and merch are how artists get paid.I wish I had more time and money to spend on concerts. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 14, 2019 17:38:21 GMT -5
I definitely have had a couple of digital video files in either the avi or MP4 format that were set to delete themselves after a certain length of time connected or not, so I guess they can do that. I let one do itself in and the other I deleted ahead of time, in both cases I knew when receiving that this is what they did. You used to be able to make copies of things on youtube but they have really clamped down on that, and also on regionalising everything based on your IP address. Many DVDs and even some CDs have copyguard so you can't rip a digital copy, and I see there are editions that come with an authorized download copy, even photocopiers and scanners have had code to prevent you from copying certain things for a long while now, not just currency.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 14, 2019 18:28:54 GMT -5
I definitely have had a couple of digital video files in either the avi or MP4 format that were set to delete themselves after a certain length of time connected or not, so I guess they can do that. I let one do itself in and the other I deleted ahead of time, in both cases I knew when receiving that this is what they did. You used to be able to make copies of things on youtube but they have really clamped down on that, and also on regionalising everything based on your IP address. Many DVDs and even some CDs have copyguard so you can't rip a digital copy, and I see there are editions that come with an authorized download copy, even photocopiers and scanners have had code to prevent you from copying certain things for a long while now, not just currency. Well, "can't" versus can't. Not that I know anything about that...
But seriously, this gets to some of the ethical issues. You are legally entitled to backups of your Copyrighted media for your personal use, but then the content owners put copy protection schemes on the media and lobby for laws that make it illegal to break copyright protection, so you can't make your legally entitled copy. In that case, while not strictly legal per se, is it unethical if someone circumvents it to get the backup they are entitled to? Interesting topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 14, 2019 20:35:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure if they did this in the U.S. or U.K., but in Canada there was a levy*/tax on recordable media like CD-R or blank tapes and that was supposed to go somehow to producers of content impacted by the home duplication of possibly their works/properties. I'm pretty sure that levy is still on there and collected by someone. There were people up in arms who made the case that people might be copying their own creations/text/photos etc. on these mediums but they did not prevail in the courts.
* I was going to make a joke that in Canada there was also a Eugene Levy...
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Nov 14, 2019 23:06:25 GMT -5
I know Amazon can take away your e-books, but that's a proprietary format that requires their software. I can't figure out how they'd take my mp3s without any kind of direct connection to my PC. Yeah, that really is weird. Did you maybe have it in the same folder as their ebooks and they maybe jacked up the folder? No, I don't have Kindle at all on my computer. And my music files are all organised by artist under "Music." |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 15, 2019 17:48:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure if they did this in the U.S. or U.K., but in Canada there was a levy*/tax on recordable media like CD-R or blank tapes and that was supposed to go somehow to producers of content impacted by the home duplication of possibly their works/properties. I'm pretty sure that levy is still on there and collected by someone. There were people up in arms who made the case that people might be copying their own creations/text/photos etc. on these mediums but they did not prevail in the courts.
* I was going to make a joke that in Canada there was also a Eugene Levy...I'm sure it is still in effect, but I can't imagine there is a significant amount of people who still buy CD-Rs etc. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 16, 2019 10:18:00 GMT -5
Taylor Swift Accuses Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta of Blocking Her From Performing Her Old MusicTangentially related on the topic of copyright, this is a good demonstration of how toxic people can weaponize and screw artists out of money and even reasonable use of their own material. The short version is Taylor Swift moved to a new label to get away from her previous scummy one, and the old one is exploiting a loophole to prevent her from playing her own songs at an awards show she won and in an upcoming documentary that's been in the works for years in an attempt to strong-arm her into behaving how they want so they can keep capturing royalties on her work that they had no hand in making. Interesting and worth a read. She is speaking out to call attention to it and hopefully help smaller artists with no clout. In theory copyrighting should protect the artists, but it largely protects massive companies' abilities to suck profitability out of the pockets of the actual creatives. It's not a black and white issue, and of course Taylor Swift has the money and success she'll be all right, but good of her to call attention to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Nov 16, 2019 11:07:08 GMT -5
Taylor Swift Accuses Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta of Blocking Her From Performing Her Old MusicTangentially related on the topic of copyright, this is a good demonstration of how toxic people can weaponize and screw artists out of money and even reasonable use of their own material. The short version is Taylor Swift moved to a new label to get away from her previous scummy one, and the old one is exploiting a loophole to prevent her from playing her own songs at an awards show she won and in an upcoming documentary that's been in the works for years in an attempt to strong-arm her into behaving how they want so they can keep capturing royalties on her work that they had no hand in making. Interesting and worth a read. She is speaking out to call attention to it and hopefully help smaller artists with no clout. In theory copyrighting should protect the artists, but it largely protects massive companies' abilities to suck profitability out of the pockets of the actual creatives. It's not a black and white issue, and of course Taylor Swift has the money and success she'll be all right, but good of her to call attention to it. With Taylor Swift, there's always another side to the story. She has a well-earned reputation for vengeance. In this case, she announced in August that she was going to re-record her old albums in hopes of ruining the monetary value of her old catalog for its new owners. That's just spiteful. So they retaliated by cutting off her access to that material. It's a bargaining tactic intended to bring her to the table. Do they have the legal right for preventing her from singing their songs on national TV? That's one for the lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 16, 2019 13:56:30 GMT -5
Taylor Swift Accuses Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta of Blocking Her From Performing Her Old MusicTangentially related on the topic of copyright, this is a good demonstration of how toxic people can weaponize and screw artists out of money and even reasonable use of their own material. The short version is Taylor Swift moved to a new label to get away from her previous scummy one, and the old one is exploiting a loophole to prevent her from playing her own songs at an awards show she won and in an upcoming documentary that's been in the works for years in an attempt to strong-arm her into behaving how they want so they can keep capturing royalties on her work that they had no hand in making. Interesting and worth a read. She is speaking out to call attention to it and hopefully help smaller artists with no clout. In theory copyrighting should protect the artists, but it largely protects massive companies' abilities to suck profitability out of the pockets of the actual creatives. It's not a black and white issue, and of course Taylor Swift has the money and success she'll be all right, but good of her to call attention to it. With Taylor Swift, there's always another side to the story. She has a well-earned reputation for vengeance. In this case, she announced in August that she was going to re-record her old albums in hopes of ruining the monetary value of her old catalog for its new owners. That's just spiteful. So they retaliated by cutting off her access to that material. It's a bargaining tactic intended to bring her to the table. Do they have the legal right for preventing her from singing their songs on national TV? That's one for the lawyers. She is far from the first artist to re-record their catalog to get control back of their own flippin' material from labels, and she has the right to do so next year. Also the guys who run the label she is "spiting" are, to my knowledge, known for being absolute scum of the earth even by music industry standards. People love to dump on Swift, but she has the weight to throw around that a lot of little artists don't, and it pisses people off when she does.
In this case, the story as I read it is she wanted to buy the songs out but they refused and wanted to only accept another contract to exchange new albums for rights to each old one. Since she has the right to re-record next year anyway, she said nah, and they are now exploiting a loophole to turn the screws out of spite. We can speculate all day on the motives of each player, but at the end of the day this is showing how copyright is being wielded as a bludgeon and not in a way to benefit the artist.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Nov 16, 2019 14:25:10 GMT -5
With Taylor Swift, there's always another side to the story. She has a well-earned reputation for vengeance. In this case, she announced in August that she was going to re-record her old albums in hopes of ruining the monetary value of her old catalog for its new owners. That's just spiteful. So they retaliated by cutting off her access to that material. It's a bargaining tactic intended to bring her to the table. Do they have the legal right for preventing her from singing their songs on national TV? That's one for the lawyers. She is far from the first artist to re-record their catalog to get control back of their own flippin' material from labels, and she has the right to do so next year. Also the guys who run the label she is "spiting" are, to my knowledge, known for being absolute scum of the earth even by music industry standards. People love to dump on Swift, but she has the weight to throw around that a lot of little artists don't, and it pisses people off when she does.
In this case, the story as I read it is she wanted to buy the songs out but they refused and wanted to only accept another contract to exchange new albums for rights to each old one. Since she has the right to re-record next year anyway, she said nah, and they are now exploiting a loophole to turn the screws out of spite. We can speculate all day on the motives of each player, but at the end of the day this is showing how copyright is being wielded as a bludgeon and not in a way to benefit the artist.
She's welcome to re-record it if she wants, of course. Historically, those recordings don't have nearly the appeal as the original recording that burrowed into our collective brains. If she's going to go that route, she might as well be recording them right now and release them starting next year. If she re-imagines the old songs in a new setting, I probably will buy them. They wouldn't replace the originals; I just like hearing alternate versions. Sometimes I prefer her acoustic demos to the shiny finished versions. I'm not upset that she's exercising her clout to pursue deals that are in her best interest. Perhaps her threat to re-record the songs was simply her own bargaining tactic to bring the other side to the table. That's how the game is played. I have no knowledge of the particular people with whom she is jostling. They may very well be reprehensible. Or not. I do know that she described "getting even" as one of her core values in the liner notes of an early album. Maybe she's grown beyond that, but it colors my perception of her. As do her tell-all songs, which are all variations on "My boyfriends leave me because they are terrible people" instead of "Why do I seem to drive so many men away?" |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 16, 2019 15:00:41 GMT -5
I don't know much about current 'stars' or their deals and misdeals, but I know enough about historical situations like John Fogerty vs. Saul Zaentz of Fantasy records, and the Pete Ham - Stan Polley - Warner Brothers traingle of doom (also taking Tom Evans also of Badfinger). Uh, I'm pretty much with the actual creator on anything, even creators I don't like, so I can't argue about these things dispassionately about what may or may not be on the tiniest line of type on a piece of paper and the proper interpretation of such. There's a lyric "whoever's making the rules is gonna come out the winner." I think Bill Cowsill wrote that, he learned things the hard way, and his Dad was the manager. There are some awesomely horrific stories out there that put Taylor Swift (or Jack & Roz Kirby) in the dust, but good luck to her, and hope she doesn't get too much rope and hangs herself. Re-recording is something artists have had to do for decades thanks to mechanical rights situations... all those K-Tels LPs had a lot of them, and The Everlys, James Taylor and Neil Diamond had to redo stuff to have greatest hits collections be available at all.
|
|
