Wednesday, August 03, 2005

I found Nabeels talk today really interesting. What especially caught my attention was the idea of the legislation that surrounds music production and distribution. He talked about the need for a radical change in the laws that allow or diss allow for creative re-use and re-mix and re-interpretation of others musical efforts. It seem that it is an almost impossible ask, with somthing like the music industry whose roots are tied so strongly in art and creativity - and so in this respect somthing quite impossible to tame due to the massive layering of interests within the creation of music - but also due to the fact that this creativity has been massivley glazed over with economic concerns - and so creating a whole other dimension of conflict and room for group interest. I dont personally know enough about how the economics of big music companys effect changes in law - but Im sure that in the UK and the US it would be extremely hard to make any radical kind of change within the legislation that exists.
What do other people think? Do you think its impossible to put a system that acutally works fairly and ethically onto somthing like the music industry which is so caught up in money, capatalism and ego in the first place?


At 9:36 AM, Blogger Vasya said...

I think it's impossible because no record company in their right mind would ever alow a law change that would cut into their profits. They would fight it with every sharp clawed lawyer they have.
Personaly i think artisst should concentrate on live performances and creating new material. With the current distribution networks (internet) if you are good enough you will be known world wide. A record company does little more that run a publicity campaign for you. It a huge PR machine rather than a publisher.
I mean look at Napster. When Napster was around personaly in my circle of friends, it was as if we were all music gurus. Our CD collections exploded as we download everything in sight. I personaly trace the formation of my music tastes to the availiability that Napster represented. I would perhaps download half an album and only then go and throw out 30NZD on the actual thing with the booklet and the whole shebang. As far as music goes, it was all there, ready to be tried explored and invested in if found worthy.

At 12:38 PM, Blogger Andrew Cozens said...

Why is it that napster went down and yet there is still a multitude of file sharing programs out there? Was Napster just a scapegoat or is there some technicality about the other programs out there at the moment which means they can't be prosecuted by the record companies/movie industry?

Was just wondering if anyone could provide me with more information on it :)

Oh and something that kevin was saying in the tutorial about the silly movie piracy announcements that play before you see a movie and how they were drilling this message into people who had already paid to see the movie etc

I would have though a more effective way to combat piracy would be to flood the internet with bogus files, huge 700mb downloads that are titled x movie but when you open them just comes up with a notice saying don't download pirated movies etc.. and maybe if the net was flooded with enough bogus files then people would get fed up with searching for a real pirated copy. Just an idea.

Or are there ways to detect a bogus file before you download it? i am sure the more technilogically literate would be able to do this but i cant tell the difference.

At 1:18 PM, Blogger mags said...

not too sure why Napster bore the brunt of the whole music download thing. Was it a share network like winmx? Or was it an actual company which offered downloads to who ever wanted them?


Post a Comment

<< Home