In answer to Alex's question about
"When is an MP3 file *not* like a lighthouse?"
The answer is when people really feel "entertained"
and want to contribute to the people who provided that.
I've been listening to Venessa-Mae's Storm the last
couple of days (I may take days to weeks to change
a CD). I purchased it once and can enjoy it many times.
People should be clear that the RIAA/MPAA are trying
to move to a model that denies me that ability
(in violation of the "personal use" rights of
copyright law). See:
"downloads will cost 7 cents per song and must be tied to a
particular computer, where they will expire after a month"
[i.e. they are trying to take away the ability for you to
permanently purchase the copyright -- they want to move
to a pay-per-listen/view rather than a permanent licence
I would be happy to utilize a program that *I* controlled
that monitored what songs I played and based on my subjective
assessment of my enjoyment of those songs did micropayment "tipping"
directly to the artists (I'd tip Vanessa-Mae more than I'd tip
Marilyn Manson -- but thats just me).
I think Emlyn's point about who pays the producers or Lee's points
about "good" marketing people adding value are important.
People who "tune" rough artists and people who can develop
non-intrusive means of educating the public about good
artists *do* provide value. It would be a very different
world if they were paid by the *artists* rather than by
the record or movie companies.
I think the extropic focus of the thread should be on how
to develop systems (education, distribution, etc.) that would
support artists to a greater extent while at the same time
maximizing the pleasure that listeners & viewers obtain
from various entertainment sources.
Free bits are not inherently extropic bits.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT