Forum.ArchosFans.com

Unofficial Archos Support Forum
It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:56 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
strikeback03 wrote:
I consider the subscription services amongst the worst business plans ever,


Sure, being able to put 250GB of legal music on your Archos for below $10 per month is a bad business model.

A subscription model means everytime you discover a new artist that you like, in the matter of seconds, you can download the artists complete discography onto your Archos and listen to all of the songs just as you listen to any Mp3 files that you have.

In Denmark, the subscription plans are included with the ISP monthly subscription fee, so it is estimated to be below $5 per month. Though for now the danish subscriptions licenses only covers about 3 million songs from the major labels, thus not all of their contents are included yet. And especially which I think is shameful, is that independent artists cannot just add their content onto that system and receive the similar payments as for major label content playbacks. Independent artists have to go through complicated licensing deals. So your independent trance artist probably isn't part of that system, which sucks.

But hopefully Obama will streamline the subscription systems so that they stop using DRM even for subscription plans. One should just be able to download any Mp3, Flac, Wav formats people would want. And Obama and other European governments need to make it extremely easy for independent artists to register their new releases on this system and their content has to be available across all of the subscription services in all formats.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:53 pm 
Offline
Archos Novice
Archos Novice

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:41 pm
Posts: 43
Creative Commons. There. Done. No more worries.

What the Archos really needs, now that it has some keyboard support, is a proper text editor. The "notes" widget/application is not good enough.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
Don wrote:
Creative Commons. There. Done. No more worries.


Creative commons does not fix monetization of arts in my opinion. On the contrary. When you publish your stuff using creative commons with commercial use, it can happen that corporations steal your work for large commercial profit without paying you a fair amount of money.

Anyways, I don't think arts should be handled in a commercial way and there should not be licensing involved either. All works of art should be monetized through taxes and all should automatically be licensed the same way for commercial use.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:02 am 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:19 am
Posts: 1745
Charbax wrote:
Anyways, I don't think arts should be handled in a commercial way and there should not be licensing involved either. All works of art should be monetized through taxes and all should automatically be licensed the same way for commercial use.


This happens to some extent in the UK. The problem is that people deeply resent being taxed for the creation of art and music which they, personally, don't like. I can't imagine any increase in this kind of taxation being a vote-winner, to be honest.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
kb wrote:
Charbax wrote:
Anyways, I don't think arts should be handled in a commercial way and there should not be licensing involved either. All works of art should be monetized through taxes and all should automatically be licensed the same way for commercial use.


This happens to some extent in the UK. The problem is that people deeply resent being taxed for the creation of art and music which they, personally, don't like. I can't imagine any increase in this kind of taxation being a vote-winner, to be honest.


You'll be in fact paying taxes for music and arts that you like. Since it's going to be based on statistics of playback and ratings that all the people will do over the Internet. Usage statistics and ratings are easy to monitor very precisely on the Internet.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:22 am 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:19 am
Posts: 1745
Charbax wrote:
You'll be in fact paying taxes for music and arts that you like. Since it's going to be based on statistics of playback and ratings that all the people will do over the Internet. Usage statistics and ratings are easy to monitor very precisely on the Internet.


Well I'm screwed then. I mostly listen to music of the renaissance and baroque eras, which is a very niche enthusiasm. Statistically speaking, the tax money will just about raise enough money to fund one recording a year in East Dogpatch village hall by the Buttfuck Community Orchestra.

That's the problem with taxation in general. I'm a hard-line, cloth-cap socialist and I'm happy with funding all essentials from the public purse -- shelter, food, water, education, etc -- but even I baulk at using tax money for art; the tyranny of the majority and all that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:57 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:45 pm
Posts: 529
Charbax wrote:
Sure, being able to put 250GB of legal music on your Archos for below $10 per month is a bad business model.


Well, sure, if you can con the ISP or the government into requiring the subscription, then it is a great business model. Charge everyone for something not everyone will use.

I'm not even going to comment on the taxation thing. But a lot of independent artists do make their music available free online, other than Amazon's free MP3s though it isn't collected too well in one place.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:02 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:28 pm
Posts: 957
Charbax wrote:
But hopefully Obama will streamline the subscription systems so that they stop using DRM even for subscription plans. One should just be able to download any Mp3, Flac, Wav formats people would want.


So, then what is to prevent people from joining a subscription plan, downloading a terabyte of music, then canceling the plan and keeping the music forever?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
strikeback03 wrote:
Charbax wrote:
Sure, being able to put 250GB of legal music on your Archos for below $10 per month is a bad business model.


Well, sure, if you can con the ISP or the government into requiring the subscription, then it is a great business model. Charge everyone for something not everyone will use.


Music and other types of arts are for everyone. Just as everybody pays for museums and libraries through taxes.

strikeback03 wrote:
I'm not even going to comment on the taxation thing. But a lot of independent artists do make their music available free online


Which completely sucks for most of those artists. Artists shouldn't be supposed to beg for money. Money should come to the artists totally automatically based on statistics of playbacks and ratings.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
kawiultraman wrote:
Charbax wrote:
But hopefully Obama will streamline the subscription systems so that they stop using DRM even for subscription plans. One should just be able to download any Mp3, Flac, Wav formats people would want.


So, then what is to prevent people from joining a subscription plan, downloading a terabyte of music, then canceling the plan and keeping the music forever?


It'll be a tax that everyone will pay forever.

You don't ever stop paying for the building of museums and libraries. Just as you don't stop paying for art schools and for public service television channels.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:10 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
kb wrote:
Charbax wrote:
You'll be in fact paying taxes for music and arts that you like. Since it's going to be based on statistics of playback and ratings that all the people will do over the Internet. Usage statistics and ratings are easy to monitor very precisely on the Internet.


That's the problem with taxation in general. I'm a hard-line, cloth-cap socialist and I'm happy with funding all essentials from the public purse -- shelter, food, water, education, etc -- but even I baulk at using tax money for art; the tyranny of the majority and all that.


There is no tyranny of the majority. Since statistics of playbacks and ratings on the Internet allow for the broadest diversity in tastes. Especially also if the Government encourages the use of recommendation algorithms based on the ratings which will thus recommend new better artists for everyone to check out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:18 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:45 pm
Posts: 529
I wouldn't really consider much of today's music (esp. popular music) as art. Paying to support Michelangelo is one thing, paying to support Eminem is something entirely different.

Wouldn't the same argument apply to movies? So it would then be the taxpayers paying Tom Cruise $50 million for another bad movie?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:25 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:28 pm
Posts: 957
Charbax wrote:

It'll be a tax that everyone will pay forever.

You don't ever stop paying for the building of museums and libraries. Just as you don't stop paying for art schools and for public service television channels.


Ah, well, considering you live in a socialist society, I should have expected that answer. :D


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:29 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:19 am
Posts: 1745
strikeback03 wrote:
I wouldn't really consider much of today's music (esp. popular music) as art. Paying to support Michelangelo is one thing, paying to support Eminem is something entirely different.

Wouldn't the same argument apply to movies? So it would then be the taxpayers paying Tom Cruise $50 million for another bad movie?


This is, indeed, the heart of the matter. Public funding of the arts has to offer

a. Wide and lasting appeal, and
b. Excellent value for money.

Of course, these two factors are related. It costs a lot of money to produce the tawdry studio-engineered pap that passed for music these days (sorry, can't help being old), and in a year's time it's forgotten without regret. OK, so there are exceptions, but not many.

It costs a lot of money to put on and record a full performance of Handel's Messiah -- a heck of a lot of money. But since people have been listening to it for getting on for 400 years, it's a fair bet that it will continue to be in demand. Of course, the same could be said (on a shorter timescale, of course) of the Beatles, or Pink Floyd, or any number of others. But it's difficult to predict at the time what's going to last and what's going to sink without trace.

Public funding of museums and art galleries can offer good value for money, because the number of people who benefit from them is pretty large compared to the amount the cost to run, especially when averaged out over decades. I just don't see how that's going to be true of modern music, which is almost always ephemeral.

(Of course, most music of the classical era was ephemeral, too. But we at least get the benefit of hindsight with that, and a very long period of Darwinian selection to weed out the rubbish).


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
strikeback03 wrote:
I wouldn't really consider much of today's music (esp. popular music) as art. Paying to support Michelangelo is one thing, paying to support Eminem is something entirely different.

Wouldn't the same argument apply to movies? So it would then be the taxpayers paying Tom Cruise $50 million for another bad movie?


Legalizing piracy and paying for the creation of art through taxes is going to change the art industry dramatically in a very short period of time. For the much better.

Big movie productions will still be made, in fact more and larger movie projects will be made. Though instead of it being one movie studio executive deciding what to invest in on purely commercial grounds, the decision on which artists to provide which amounts of funds for which projects will be made democratically by all viewers based on statistics of playbacks and on ratings of the artists previous productions. Movies will be released instantly on the internet instead of waiting months and years for commercial marketing windows. In fact the people will even be able to sneak peak on all the daily reels and all of the footage and remixes of those if the artist releases it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
kb wrote:
It costs a lot of money to produce the tawdry studio-engineered pap that passed for music these days


In fact, it does not. Anyone with an Archos 10 laptop and some talent can release popular music today.

It's only using my proposition of financing all the creators of arts through taxes that we are going to be able to afford much better diversity in the artistic contents being released.

Even as little as an average of $5 per month per person, amounts to 5x or 10x the current music and movies industries put together. In fact, just for the USA and Europe, such a $5 monthly art tax would amount to over $50 billion per year. And consider that under my art tax proposal, the money will go directly to the artists, for the artists to manage themselves how to spend that money on new productions. Thus you eliminate all intermediaries such as music labels, movie studios, newspaper and book publishers and TV channels. Eliminating all those intermediaries means artists actually can have 20x or 50x more means to create more and better artistic works then they have under the current commercial system. It will mean a huge explosion in the quantity and quality of the new works of art by many more full-time and part-time artists that will be released and most importantly, that will be made available for all on the Internet.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited