Patronage is a model the Table Top Gaming (Role-playing, card games, and miniatures, Think Dungeons & Dragons, Magic the Gathering or Warhammer) business segment is experimenting with. Don't get me wrong, it is not a replacement for game companies like Wizards of the Coast (WotC), Paizo, Fanatasy Flight, etc.
The fact is most companies have severely reduced their employee overhead and use freelancers to fill the void. If you talk to those freelancers its hard to make a living off your work (unless you command premium pricing or work at a prodigious rate). Even being employed by WotC, the top dog of this business isn't going to make you rich.
That has led some writers to experiment with Patronage Projects (Kickstarter is where small publishers are doing similar things, only with less patron involvement) in which authors, a specific project, and a triggering amount of patronage money will start the project. To sweeten the pot, those that put money in get to help make the product with the authors. They act as a small hive-mind, play test, and depending on skill and money kicked in writing assignments and credit.
Paizo, maker of a Open Game License version of D&D called Pathfinder, their bread and butter is their subscription services for their products. They know before they go to print that they have a set amount of money coming in from those automatic sales, which helps cover their production costs and makes it more likely they will show a profit.
All of these companies stuff is showing up in torrents, at 4shared, etc. They do go after folks who are stealing their IP and trademarks (they have to in the case of their trademarks or risk losing them) but they realize its a losing battle.
WotC has moved to making tactile products that enhance the material they are selling, stuff that does not translate digitally. They have made a concerted effort to improve the quality of their products so that folks will want to buy them.
It hasn't been all peaches and cream in my hobby obsession. There have been some real PR disasters by various entities in reaction to piracy, where punishing innocent along with the guilty has been a problem in the past.
All in all, businesses are scared. Print as a medium is getting harder to do. All this experimentation means that some stuff fails. Failure for the small guys can be the the difference between existence and non-existence. Even Wizards of the Coast (A wholly owned subsidiary of Hasbro) has had to come to grips with the changes in the market place.
Shifting to another segment of the geek industry, actors like Felicia Day have pioneered patronage for successful web video series (she is backed by Microsoft and from fan donations). Her series The Guild (go see it) has led the way for others to do the same thing. This has led to shows like Legend of Neil at Atom Films. Joss Wheadon produced Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog during the writers strike as a web series.
It is possible to innovate.
Personally, I think that the music industry is going to have deal with the fact that performance, merchandise, and other tangible things are main way they make money. Money from legally purchase music will be just one among many revenue streams that support the artist. What role recording companies play in this remains to be seen.
Rockadelic, you sound like you're living in the - distant - past.
The problem is that most musicians are not marketers???they are clueless on how to promote their music to the people, just as those folks whose records I seek out were bitd. And if the major labels narrow their focus and gamble onfewer and fewer artists what we wind up with is a lower overall qualityacross the board.
Couldnt be further off the mark. This in large part is one of the great advances of the digital age - cutting out the middle man. (Self) promotion through digital media is absolutely key for any succesful new act and quite often some of the best ones are the shrewdest self marketeers. In hiphop this has already been going on for years in the mixtape scene for example.
And once again the lower quality of art/music being made across the board because of piracy or record companies having less money is nonsense. There is as much good music out there for kids today as there ever was, and as many people are going out dancing and getting drunk to new music as they ever were, every night.
Also, these 'great third tier artists' you refer to who could only exist with label support but still flopped bitd also ended up not making any money and going back to their day jobs. So how were they any better off than current acts without deals flopping? One flop on a major label meant you never got paid.
Finally your whole stance about downloading music being theft is pretty rich coming from a used record dealer. None of the used records you ever bought or sold resulted in any payment to any of the artists or labels involved. You were the only one making any money. So how are you in a position to wag your finger at people sharing music online for free 'because the artists arent getting paid' ???
Its all about traffic. If you generate tons of traffic by offering something great for free, you will be able to make a lot of money through advertising. Pay the artists making their music available for 'free' a fair chunk of the generated advertising revenue, and eveyone is getting paid, with no need for record company involvement.
Rockadelic, you sound like you're living in the - distant - past.
Rock-a-riddle me that.
If an artist wants to independently market their music through the internet and offer free downloads who the hell am I to say that's wrong....it's their art they can do whatever they want with it and if that's the route they choose....good luck and more power to them.
The only downloading/duplication I object to is that which is done without the artists/owners approval.
This new technology has made theft and illegal/unauthorized duplication and distribution easy and I contest that new technology does not legalize theft. For many years you, I and everyone else have been enjoying the lawless wild west of the Internet that evolved quicker than the laws that regulate it did.
Most traffic laws didn't come to be until nearly 20 years after the advent of the automobile..and even today I probably break one law or another on a daily basis....but I won't be surprised or bitch when I'm caught and penalized......as technology evolves so must the laws that protect it's users and innocent bystanders. To expect that the laws wouldn't catch up with the internet is kinda naive.
As far as selling a used record goes there are laws that state that as long as the owner was originally paid for the actual article they have been fairly compensated....this is a far cry from duplication and mass distribution.....otherwise the Picasso estate would get paid every time one of his painting change hands....or the U.S. Government would take a share of the sale of a rare stamp.......pretty ludicrous....but try to duplicate and distribute that stamp and you're going to prison.
Aside from my belief that musicians and copyright holders should be protected from theft, I also believe that the artists who don't have access to the state of the art recording equipment, best producers, engineers, etc. don't create the best music they potentially could. I'll admit that maybe I just haven't been looking in the right places. There is nothing I would rather do than to hear the modern day Marvin Gaye's, Beatles or Led Zeppelin's, not in musical style, but in musical quality, being successful by using strictly the internet as their vehicle. If you can point me to these artists I will definitely check them out.
As far as being in the..distant..past.......yeah, I probably am. But as a label owner who made sure that long forgotten artists got paid when others were bootlegging their peers material I staunchly believe in doing things above board. If someone here can make an argument as to why a record I produced, and the artist owns the rights to, should be duplicated and distributed without permission from me or payment to the artist I'm all ears.
Megaupload was [likely] facilitating the sale of pirated products for profit?
Megaupload was busted because of international cooperation using existing local and international law?
Megaupload deserves to face the wrath of the courts?
^ That all seems straight forward, and I don't hear anyone debating it.
Given the former I would argue that new laws are not need. Agreed?
Can we also agree that the pirating of others copyrights for profit should be illegal?
With some caveats, ie reasonable length of copyright, fair use, etc?
I wish we could agree on this one:
The internet/digitization has changed the way people access copyrighted materials.
Seems simple, do we have agreement?
The changes brought on by these changes have plus and negatives. Agreed?
Now the hard part.
The major labels are hurting. Agreed?
The major labels have not adjusted well to the digital/internet age. Agreed?
If the major labels collapse and disappear it will mean fewer musicians will be able to make a living. Agreed?*
If the major labels collapse there will be less good music available to the masses. Agreed?*
If the major labels collapse there will never be another Pretzel Logic. Agreed?
Where I think we have a complete breakdown is where copyright laws should kick in.
Should libraries be allowed to loan hard copies of copyrighted materials?
Should libraries be allowed to loan digital copies of copyrighted materials?
Should websites be allowed to call themselves libraries?
Should individuals be allowed to tape their favorite music and share it with friends?
Should individuals be allowed to rip cds of their favorite music and share it with friends?
Should individuals be allowed to rip digital copies of their favorite music and share it with friends?
How do define friends?
Should Soulstut be allowed to post mixes?
Should the sale of used records be allowed?
Should the sale of promo records be allowed?
Should the sale of used cds be allowed?
Should the sale of used TMQs be allowed?
Should YT be allowed post copyrighted material?
Should other websites be allowed post copyrighted material?
Should copyrighted materials (such as album covers) be allowed to be posted in ebay ads?
Has collector frenzy quit posting thumbs because they are worried about copyright violations?
If yes, should they be?
Seems like it is these degree questions where everything breaks down and arguing starts.
I don't think anyone here is pro pirating music to the detriment of the musicians and their labels.
This new technology has made theft and illegal/unauthorized duplication and distribution easy and I contest that new technology does not legalize theft. For many years you, I and everyone else have been enjoying the lawless wild west of the Internet that evolved quicker than the laws that regulate it did.
This is in my agreement post.
I don't see what new laws are needed, or why they are needed.
It is still illegal to duplicate and distribute. Agreed?
That is why and how megaupload got busted. Agreed?
This new technology has made theft and illegal/unauthorized duplication and distribution easy and I contest that new technology does not legalize theft. For many years you, I and everyone else have been enjoying the lawless wild west of the Internet that evolved quicker than the laws that regulate it did.
This is in my agreement post.
I don't see what new laws are needed, or why they are needed.
It is still illegal to duplicate and distribute. Agreed?
That is why and how megaupload got busted. Agreed?
What new laws do you think are necessary?
Megaupload got busted because of a million and one reasons. If you read the indictment, this was a massive conspiracy of illegality that was far larger than just blindly operating a file sharing site. They were lying to copyright owners about taking down illegal files (which they never did), uploading thousands of unauthorized videos and blatantly encouraging their users to upload illegal files for financial gain via the mega rewards program. Go read the indictment.
As far as the law effecting average consumers and what should and should not be there -it is legal to buy a cd, book, dvd and re-sell it on ebay or give it away. This is called the "first sale doctrine" and it is codified under copyright law. The legislature recognized that this was a good idea for a number of reasons. It allows for a cheaper secondary market and also promotes innovation as a fellow artist or software innovator does not have to get a copyright holder's permission when an owner of a copy decides to transfer that copy. If this codification of the first sale doctrine did not exist, you literally would have to ask the copyright owner's permission before you sold, transferred or even gave away an item.
In the digital age, the law (or technology) should be updated to reflect the principles behind the first sale doctrine, which is still alive with digital works, but essentially inapplicable. How do you sell an mp3 or digital book without making a copy of it? The technology exists with software coding.
This new technology has made theft and illegal/unauthorized duplication and distribution easy and I contest that new technology does not legalize theft. For many years you, I and everyone else have been enjoying the lawless wild west of the Internet that evolved quicker than the laws that regulate it did.
This is in my agreement post.
I don't see what new laws are needed, or why they are needed.
It is still illegal to duplicate and distribute. Agreed?
That is why and how megaupload got busted. Agreed?
What new laws do you think are necessary?
Megaupload got busted because of a million and one reasons. If you read the indictment, this was a massive conspiracy of illegality that was far larger than just blindly operating a file sharing site. They were lying to copyright owners about taking down illegal files (which they never did), uploading thousands of unauthorized videos and blatantly encouraging their users to upload illegal files for financial gain via the mega rewards program. Go read the indictment.
As far as the law effecting average consumers and what should and should not be there -it is legal to buy a cd, book, dvd and re-sell it on ebay or give it away. This is called the "first sale doctrine" and it is codified under copyright law. The legislature recognized that this was a good idea for a number of reasons. It allows for a cheaper secondary market and also promotes innovation as a fellow artist or software innovator does not have to get a copyright holder's permission when an owner of a copy decides to transfer that copy. If this codification of the first sale doctrine did not exist, you literally would have to ask the copyright owner's permission before you sold, transferred or even gave away an item.
In the digital age, the law (or technology) should be updated to reflect the principles behind the first sale doctrine, which is still alive with digital works, but essentially inapplicable. How do you sell an mp3 or digital book without making a copy of it? The technology exists with software coding.
I believe you about the indictment. Again, it proves that the laws against pirating work.
Your last sentence suggests that software, not laws, is the answer to stopping pirating of digital information. If I understand you.
While "first sale doctrine" might be law Microsoft and RIAA have tried, sometimes effectively to stop resale.
Back in 1990 the majors quit selling to stores that sold used cds as a way of punishing them for resale. And they threatened them with lawsuits. Just one of many examples of how they have destroyed their own business.
This is a bit off-topic, but it relates to Internet-based royalties. At our station, since we also have a web-cast in addition to a terrestrial broadcast, we now have to log our playlists for our shows along with time stamps when the songs were played. Apparently, someone will take our playlists and will count how many people were logged onto our web stream at each particular song. The royalty is determined on how many people were listening to the song at that particular moment. We were told that a song basically has to have 10,000 listeners/listens for the publisher of the song to make $10. Thank god someone thinks it is a good idea to have a law that says the Internet basically needs to be shut down if a record label doesn't get their government mandated handful of pennies for their intellectual property.
Mind-reading device could become reality
A device which reads the thoughts of brain-damaged patients could become a reality, scientists claimed, after proving they could tell what someone was hearing just by decoding their brain waves.
In the video embedded above, each word spoken to a group of patients by an electronic voice is replicated twice by a computer which analysed the patients' brain waves to 'guess' what they had heard.
Researchers demonstrated that the brain breaks down words into complex patterns of electrical activity, which can be decoded and translated back into an approximate version of the original sound.
Because the brain is believed to process thought in a similar way to sound, scientists hope the breakthrough could lead to an implant which can interpret imagined speech in patients who cannot talk.
Any such device is a long way off because researchers would have to make the technology much more accurate and find a way to apply it to sounds which the patient merely thinks of, rather than hears.
It would also require electrodes to be placed beneath the skull onto the brain itself, because no sensors exist which could detect the tiny patterns of electrical activity non-invasively.
But the proof-of-concept study published in the Public Library of Sciences Biology journal could offer hope to thousands of brain-damaged patients who face the daily agony of being unable to communicate with their loved ones.
Prof Robert Knight, one of the researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, said: "This is huge for patients who have damage to their speech mechanisms because of a stroke or Lou Gehrig's disease and can't speak.
"If you could eventually reconstruct imagined conversations from brain activity, thousands of people could benefit."
The team studied 15 epilepsy patients who were undergoing exploratory surgery to find the cause of their seizures, a process in which a series or electrodes are connected to the brain through a hole in the skull.
While the electrodes were attached, the researchers monitored activity in the temporal lobe ??? a speech-processing area of the brain ??? as the patients listened to five to ten minutes of conversation.
By breaking down the conversation into its component sounds, they were able to build two computer models which matched distinct signals in the brain to individual sounds.
They then tested the models by playing a recording of a single word to the patients, and predicting from the brain activity what the word they had heard was.
The better of the two programmes was able to produce a close enough approximation of the word that scientists could guess what it was, from a list of two options, 90 per cent of the time.
Researchers said it could be made more accurate by studying patients' brain signals during a longer conversation, or examining other parts of the brain involved in speech-processing.
Dr Brian Pasley, who led the study, compared the method to a pianist who could watch a piano being played in a soundproof room and "hear" the music just by watching the movement of the keys.
Any concerns about sinister "mind-reading" devices which could spy on a person's secret thoughts would be misguided, he added, because the technique would rely on a patient consciously "hearing" a word in their mind.
He said: "This is just to understand how the brain converts sound into meaning, and that is a very complicated process. The clinical application would be down the road if we could find out more about those imaginary processes.
"This research is based on sounds a person actually hears, but to use this for a prosthetic device these principles would have to apply to someone who is imagining speech."
Jan Schnupp, Professor of Neuroscience at Oxford University, described the study as "remarkable".
He said: "Neuroscientists have long believed that the brain essentially works by translating aspects of the external world, such as spoken words, into patterns of electrical activity.
"But proving that this is true by showing that it is possible to translate these activity patterns back into the original sound (or at least a fair approximation of it) is nevertheless a great step forward, and it paves the way to rapid progress toward biomedical applications."
Comments
The fact is most companies have severely reduced their employee overhead and use freelancers to fill the void. If you talk to those freelancers its hard to make a living off your work (unless you command premium pricing or work at a prodigious rate). Even being employed by WotC, the top dog of this business isn't going to make you rich.
That has led some writers to experiment with Patronage Projects (Kickstarter is where small publishers are doing similar things, only with less patron involvement) in which authors, a specific project, and a triggering amount of patronage money will start the project. To sweeten the pot, those that put money in get to help make the product with the authors. They act as a small hive-mind, play test, and depending on skill and money kicked in writing assignments and credit.
Paizo, maker of a Open Game License version of D&D called Pathfinder, their bread and butter is their subscription services for their products. They know before they go to print that they have a set amount of money coming in from those automatic sales, which helps cover their production costs and makes it more likely they will show a profit.
All of these companies stuff is showing up in torrents, at 4shared, etc. They do go after folks who are stealing their IP and trademarks (they have to in the case of their trademarks or risk losing them) but they realize its a losing battle.
WotC has moved to making tactile products that enhance the material they are selling, stuff that does not translate digitally. They have made a concerted effort to improve the quality of their products so that folks will want to buy them.
It hasn't been all peaches and cream in my hobby obsession. There have been some real PR disasters by various entities in reaction to piracy, where punishing innocent along with the guilty has been a problem in the past.
All in all, businesses are scared. Print as a medium is getting harder to do. All this experimentation means that some stuff fails. Failure for the small guys can be the the difference between existence and non-existence. Even Wizards of the Coast (A wholly owned subsidiary of Hasbro) has had to come to grips with the changes in the market place.
Shifting to another segment of the geek industry, actors like Felicia Day have pioneered patronage for successful web video series (she is backed by Microsoft and from fan donations). Her series The Guild (go see it) has led the way for others to do the same thing. This has led to shows like Legend of Neil at Atom Films. Joss Wheadon produced Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog during the writers strike as a web series.
It is possible to innovate.
Personally, I think that the music industry is going to have deal with the fact that performance, merchandise, and other tangible things are main way they make money. Money from legally purchase music will be just one among many revenue streams that support the artist. What role recording companies play in this remains to be seen.
My two cents.
Couldnt be further off the mark. This in large part is one of the great advances of the digital age - cutting out the middle man. (Self) promotion through digital media is absolutely key for any succesful new act and quite often some of the best ones are the shrewdest self marketeers. In hiphop this has already been going on for years in the mixtape scene for example.
And once again the lower quality of art/music being made across the board because of piracy or record companies having less money is nonsense. There is as much good music out there for kids today as there ever was, and as many people are going out dancing and getting drunk to new music as they ever were, every night.
Also, these 'great third tier artists' you refer to who could only exist with label support but still flopped bitd also ended up not making any money and going back to their day jobs. So how were they any better off than current acts without deals flopping? One flop on a major label meant you never got paid.
Finally your whole stance about downloading music being theft is pretty rich coming from a used record dealer. None of the used records you ever bought or sold resulted in any payment to any of the artists or labels involved. You were the only one making any money. So how are you in a position to wag your finger at people sharing music online for free 'because the artists arent getting paid' ???
Rock-a-riddle me that.
http://digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120123busta
Wonder if this is really his thoughts.
If an artist wants to independently market their music through the internet and offer free downloads who the hell am I to say that's wrong....it's their art they can do whatever they want with it and if that's the route they choose....good luck and more power to them.
The only downloading/duplication I object to is that which is done without the artists/owners approval.
This new technology has made theft and illegal/unauthorized duplication and distribution easy and I contest that new technology does not legalize theft. For many years you, I and everyone else have been enjoying the lawless wild west of the Internet that evolved quicker than the laws that regulate it did.
Most traffic laws didn't come to be until nearly 20 years after the advent of the automobile..and even today I probably break one law or another on a daily basis....but I won't be surprised or bitch when I'm caught and penalized......as technology evolves so must the laws that protect it's users and innocent bystanders. To expect that the laws wouldn't catch up with the internet is kinda naive.
As far as selling a used record goes there are laws that state that as long as the owner was originally paid for the actual article they have been fairly compensated....this is a far cry from duplication and mass distribution.....otherwise the Picasso estate would get paid every time one of his painting change hands....or the U.S. Government would take a share of the sale of a rare stamp.......pretty ludicrous....but try to duplicate and distribute that stamp and you're going to prison.
Aside from my belief that musicians and copyright holders should be protected from theft, I also believe that the artists who don't have access to the state of the art recording equipment, best producers, engineers, etc. don't create the best music they potentially could. I'll admit that maybe I just haven't been looking in the right places. There is nothing I would rather do than to hear the modern day Marvin Gaye's, Beatles or Led Zeppelin's, not in musical style, but in musical quality, being successful by using strictly the internet as their vehicle. If you can point me to these artists I will definitely check them out.
As far as being in the..distant..past.......yeah, I probably am. But as a label owner who made sure that long forgotten artists got paid when others were bootlegging their peers material I staunchly believe in doing things above board. If someone here can make an argument as to why a record I produced, and the artist owns the rights to, should be duplicated and distributed without permission from me or payment to the artist I'm all ears.
Megaupload was [likely] facilitating the sale of pirated products for profit?
Megaupload was busted because of international cooperation using existing local and international law?
Megaupload deserves to face the wrath of the courts?
^ That all seems straight forward, and I don't hear anyone debating it.
Given the former I would argue that new laws are not need. Agreed?
Can we also agree that the pirating of others copyrights for profit should be illegal?
With some caveats, ie reasonable length of copyright, fair use, etc?
I wish we could agree on this one:
The internet/digitization has changed the way people access copyrighted materials.
Seems simple, do we have agreement?
The changes brought on by these changes have plus and negatives. Agreed?
Now the hard part.
The major labels are hurting. Agreed?
The major labels have not adjusted well to the digital/internet age. Agreed?
If the major labels collapse and disappear it will mean fewer musicians will be able to make a living. Agreed?*
If the major labels collapse there will be less good music available to the masses. Agreed?*
If the major labels collapse there will never be another Pretzel Logic. Agreed?
Where I think we have a complete breakdown is where copyright laws should kick in.
Should libraries be allowed to loan hard copies of copyrighted materials?
Should libraries be allowed to loan digital copies of copyrighted materials?
Should websites be allowed to call themselves libraries?
Should individuals be allowed to tape their favorite music and share it with friends?
Should individuals be allowed to rip cds of their favorite music and share it with friends?
Should individuals be allowed to rip digital copies of their favorite music and share it with friends?
How do define friends?
Should Soulstut be allowed to post mixes?
Should the sale of used records be allowed?
Should the sale of promo records be allowed?
Should the sale of used cds be allowed?
Should the sale of used TMQs be allowed?
Should YT be allowed post copyrighted material?
Should other websites be allowed post copyrighted material?
Should copyrighted materials (such as album covers) be allowed to be posted in ebay ads?
Has collector frenzy quit posting thumbs because they are worried about copyright violations?
If yes, should they be?
Seems like it is these degree questions where everything breaks down and arguing starts.
I don't think anyone here is pro pirating music to the detriment of the musicians and their labels.
*No, I don't agree.
This is in my agreement post.
I don't see what new laws are needed, or why they are needed.
It is still illegal to duplicate and distribute. Agreed?
That is why and how megaupload got busted. Agreed?
What new laws do you think are necessary?
Megaupload got busted because of a million and one reasons. If you read the indictment, this was a massive conspiracy of illegality that was far larger than just blindly operating a file sharing site. They were lying to copyright owners about taking down illegal files (which they never did), uploading thousands of unauthorized videos and blatantly encouraging their users to upload illegal files for financial gain via the mega rewards program. Go read the indictment.
As far as the law effecting average consumers and what should and should not be there -it is legal to buy a cd, book, dvd and re-sell it on ebay or give it away. This is called the "first sale doctrine" and it is codified under copyright law. The legislature recognized that this was a good idea for a number of reasons. It allows for a cheaper secondary market and also promotes innovation as a fellow artist or software innovator does not have to get a copyright holder's permission when an owner of a copy decides to transfer that copy. If this codification of the first sale doctrine did not exist, you literally would have to ask the copyright owner's permission before you sold, transferred or even gave away an item.
In the digital age, the law (or technology) should be updated to reflect the principles behind the first sale doctrine, which is still alive with digital works, but essentially inapplicable. How do you sell an mp3 or digital book without making a copy of it? The technology exists with software coding.
I believe you about the indictment. Again, it proves that the laws against pirating work.
Your last sentence suggests that software, not laws, is the answer to stopping pirating of digital information. If I understand you.
While "first sale doctrine" might be law Microsoft and RIAA have tried, sometimes effectively to stop resale.
Back in 1990 the majors quit selling to stores that sold used cds as a way of punishing them for resale. And they threatened them with lawsuits. Just one of many examples of how they have destroyed their own business.
The other part I liked was the bit about craft; that's gone.
Sayin