Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Online music
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
KMMI77
Posts: 1821
Joined: Jul. 26 2009
From: The land down under
|
 RE: Online music (in reply to Ron.M)
|
|
|
quote:
When folk phone me up to get what sounds like a complex, expensive and pain-in-the-ass problem on their Plasma TV repaired and say things like "Oh I looked it up on the Internet and apparently it's quite a common fault and should only cost a couple of quid to repair...", I tell them to just go get it fixed on the Internet then and hang up
 I repaired my printer using the internet last week. I could't believe it actually worked That's the first time i have been able to fix an electrical appliance via the internet.
quote:
How do members feel about "bootleg" dvds of concerts of their favourite artists being put up for sale, bearing in mind that the concert recordings are not available officially?
I think new restrictions could actually encourage the sharing of videos by the content and copyright holders them selves. I don't see why all the videos on you tube would have to disappear? They could just be re uploaded by the actual content and copyright owners . If duplication is prevented, then advertising revenue becomes an incentive, and can go to those who deserve it.
The way it is now on you tube, the copyright infringer can upload, he gets nothing, and neither does the copyright holder. Only you tube makes money from these videos. And easy duplication of popular content takes away incentive for the copyright owner to share.
Under a different system, If someone films a bootleg, they could send it to the copyright holders channel and ask them to upload it. If it's a good video, and there is a demand to watch it, I don't see why flamenco guitarists would necessarily refuse? They may even be willing to share revenue. Who knows?
Anyway, everyone on you tube has already agreed to copyright laws when they upload. So when they're enforced, it's will be pretty lame if people are surprised.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 8 2012 9:53:54
 |
|
chester
Posts: 891
Joined: Oct. 29 2010
|
|
RE: Online music (in reply to Ron.M)
|
|
|
quote:
How do members feel about "bootleg" dvds of concerts of their favorite artists being put up for sale, bearing in mind that the concert recordings are not available officially?
Good question, I was going to bring bootlegs up as they are much older than the internet and yet - music somehow managed to survive and is still being made to this day! Quite astonishing really!
quote:
Why should only certain industries like film, music and software manufacturers be disadvantaged?
Not that it makes breaking the law alright, but the entertainment industry is one of the most bloated and excessive there is. The biggest stakeholders are people in suits, not artists.
quote:
Like it or not, I believe severe sharing and copyright restrictions will hit the internet.
There will always be rogue sites that infringe on copyright, just as there were always bootleggers. The people who will be affected by all these internet laws are people like you - web savvy but not 'hackers'. Ramzi won't be able to post his covers on youtube and you won't be able to post a tune asking for help with falsetas. Legit sites that don't mean any harm will be prosecuted while the actual pirating sites will continue to thrive because they will be 'underground'.
quote:
The way it is now on you tube, the copyright infringer can upload, he gets nothing, and neither does the copyright holder. Only you tube makes money from these videos. And easy duplication of popular content takes away incentive for the copyright owner to share.
And why shouldn't they be making money off of every video that is uploaded? Don't forget that youtube is the whole reason we're able to share our videos so easily. Regardless, the amount of money that is made by an average video that has less than a million views is pretty insignificant and I hardly expect any flamenco artist to be enticed by your proposed arrangement. We're not talking justin bieber with 5 million views.
It's admirable how you rush to defend the copyright holders, but if you do some research on who is really being hurt by piracy you'll be in for a rude awakening.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 8 2012 18:35:44
|
|
mezzo
Posts: 1409
Joined: Feb. 18 2010
From: .fr
|
|
RE: Online music (in reply to chester)
|
|
|
quote:
The people who will be affected by all these internet laws are people like you - web savvy but not 'hackers'. Ramzi won't be able to post his covers on youtube and you won't be able to post a tune asking for help with falsetas
Your analyse is biased and I desagree with it.
You don't take in consideation the huge profits generated by the big companies such as Facebook, Google (youtube), Megaupload and so on.
What's the deal of these corporations? They make money based on our activities. They just produce the code, the tree diagram and allow us to exerce our freedom via these architecture (and specific rules).
Millions or billions of $. Not just a few bucks!
So to your question who's gonna be affected by copyright rules? My answer is : these big corps first!
Yours is el rumbero! That's just sounds ridiculous imo 
The 2.0' economic model is based on everyone' broadcasting possibility and participation. We are the value and the center of facebook, youtube, myspace or Wiki. If everybody is "censored", so what? The big guys gonna loose money coz our participation will shut down and the advertasing dicreases.
El rumbero is not going to loose anything in this story. Because he's already under the YT infringment policy. He's not really free coz he doesn't master the code. He's just allowed to use the plateform.
Lately YT has autorized uploads larger than 15 min. Now we're able to found complete movies or documentaries. I'm not upset by this. Conversely I enjoyed some really cool stuff these days.
What's that moves if not an incitation to upload illegal material?
I'm fine with it. But YT and Facebook have to be forced to paid the copyright. It's up to them to solves the issue coz they make money with the stuff we upload.
Sure they don't will act in this way by themself. Rules and laws are not always bad. Deregulation is worse than restrictiction in some field. Have a look at the behavior of the financial speculation e.g.
But I understand your point you live in The land of the freedom. So you're against the wicked State who's will steal your money earn by the sweat of your brow 
Anyway that's why I wrote hypocrisy quoting your raisoning above. Because your point of view is the same as these big corporations who claim that the censorship is around the corner. They assure us that they'll fight till the end, stand up for our rights to express freely.
Money, money, $$, money, money, $$...
Also I'm sure the www is full of trolls who works for them to spread the "truth" about the villain censorship on forum and communauties. Fear and misinformation are always good weapons and easy to insinuate...
my 2 cts 
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 8 2012 21:27:59
|
|
KMMI77
Posts: 1821
Joined: Jul. 26 2009
From: The land down under
|
|
RE: Online music (in reply to chester)
|
|
|
quote:
Not that it makes breaking the law alright, but the entertainment industry is one of the most bloated and excessive there is. The biggest stakeholders are people in suits, not artists.
I assume you don't walk into your local shopping centre and steal things under this same reasoning? I can understand people taking advantage of current conditions and utilizing stuff that is made available for free. But when they make the transition to believing it's an entitlement? ...??
Left unrestricted, people have shown their willingness to steal and disregard the consequences to others. Amongst other dodgy things. So just as laws have been set up within normal society. So they will be within internet society. It's the peoples behavior that encourages the restrictions to be placed upon us. And many of these people are no better than the fat cat suits in my opinion.
I would like to see these "middle men" who have taken advantage of other peoples talents put in their place as much as the next guy. Sites enabling your average Joe to put himself out there is a good first step. The music and film industry bigwigs have certainly had their time controlling and dictating what is good, and what becomes popular with the people. The internet is providing a great platform for people to compete with it. And restricting copyright violation doesn't have to halt the process IMO.
quote:
There will always be rogue sites that infringe on copyright, just as there were always bootleggers,
Sure there will always be a few. But i wonder how many people will take the chance to download illegally once sophisticated internet tracking, GPS, Internet ID, facial recognition and eventual links to your bank account become part of the equation? Once again, it will be the peoples behavior that enables this.
quote:
The people who will be affected by all these internet laws are people like you - web savvy but not 'hackers'. Ramzi won't be able to post his covers on youtube and you won't be able to post a tune asking for help with falsetas. Legit sites that don't mean any harm will be prosecuted while the actual pirating sites will continue to thrive because they will be 'underground'.
Yes, there would be changes. And sites will be forced to adapt, and they will. I can deal with that. I learnt to play flamenco guitar without the internet. I paid for cd's, lessons etc.. out of my own pocket.
I will also still be free to write original music, record it, sell it and even share it for free if i choose. But under current conditions, there is no way i am going to spend all the time practicing, money hiring a pro studio, money hiring some great musicians and audio engineers to work with, and then creating the best cd i can, just to sell a few copies and have it distributed world wide for free.
I'd have to be an idiot!
quote:
And why shouldn't they be making money off of every video that is uploaded?
I think you misunderstood my post and have made this assumption. I'm for service providers making money providing the video content is also getting a fare share. And having people distribute content that they don't own enables these fat cats to profit without the owner receiving anything.
quote:
Don't forget that youtube is the whole reason we're able to share our videos so easily. Regardless, the amount of money that is made by an average video that has less than a million views is pretty insignificant and I hardly expect any flamenco artist to be enticed by your proposed arrangement. We're not talking justin bieber with 5 million views.
Do you really think that a site like you tube would not reopen following a new set of guidelines if it was shut down due to copyright? I believe they would, and sites like this one would adapt to follow new guidelines.
Although marketing obviously plays a significant role in popularity. Flamenco guitar videos not achieving a high view count can be attributed to the popularity of the content. It's not as if youtube has been censoring them.I think flamenco guitarists will be happy to get something rather than nothing. Even if it is a small amount. have a look at earnings on social blade website. Compare how much money PDL could have made from his videos.
On a different note, you tubes recent changes have significantly enabled them to promote their chosen content. This type of change i don't like.
Now that you tube has achieved such popularity, deciding to implement changes that change the very structure that made them popular in the first place? well, we will see what happens?
quote:
It's admirable how you rush to defend the copyright holders, but if you do some research on who is really being hurt by piracy you'll be in for a rude awakening.
As someone who follows alternative media and enjoys watching anything controversial or conspiracy related, I doubt it. Don't forget, i am talking about copyright violation and not internet censorship. That is another issue.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 9 2012 3:51:20
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.0625 secs.
|
Printable Version
