This is GhostWriter's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following GhostWriter's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
GhostWriter
Recent Activity
The whole idea of acquiring fans using social media is a fail, a myth created and maintained by so-called social media "experts", who are mostly experts at making their income by thriving on the naivety and inexperience of musicians. Social media can be great for maintaining and nurturing a fan base that you ALREADY acquired by other means.
Toggle Commented Feb 23, 2012 on 5 Social Media Fails By Musicians at hypebot
1 reply
Fantastic ! Congratulations ! Now that these 19 or 20 "genius scientists" have found the perfect way (for now) to pirate all existing content without being stopped, let's see if they can come out with an ever more genius way to help those content creators get some compensation for their work. Sorry , what was that ? " Thats not their job " ... uh.. ok...
1 reply
Ok. I understand what you mean now. And i agree with this thinking, although i think it also creates a somewhat "philosophically" unsustainable position for the artist. Because if you both believe piracy is wrong, AND yet you try to take advantage of the situation, don't you end up sending the wrong signal ? By saying ( directly or indirectly) : "I'm against piracy AND i will take advantage of this situation ", won't you end up having people responding "Well, if you say piracy has some advantages for you, why do you also say you're against it ? Shouldn't we pirate you even more then ? That way we will be actually supporting you even more :-) " In fact , it's a rationalization that is often used for piracy : "See...some artists admit that piracy is good for them. Therefore there is no reason to stop or to refrain from it, in fact we should pirate them even more :-)" It can easily backfire against you, because it's an ambiguity that people will feed on to solve their cognitive dissonance dilemna : "I know deep down that what i'm doing is wrong (piracy), but i still want to do it, therefore i need to find a rationale to help me get out of this mental loop and justify my actions" Now that said, i still kinda agree with you , and think that morally, artists have the right to be against piracy AND to try to take advantage from it ( if they can of course, it's not always the case ). It's a way of seeking reparation for damages.
Toggle Commented Feb 12, 2012 on The Civil Wars On Piracy As Marketing at hypebot
1 reply
Clyde , could you elaborate on what you consider "Web myths" ?
Toggle Commented Feb 10, 2012 on The Civil Wars On Piracy As Marketing at hypebot
1 reply
Someone should do a Kanye version of this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzxIg5p_HBs LEAVE KANYE ALONE !
1 reply
"based on rules derived by people that thought they knew everything" As opposed to... rules derived by a tech industry that thought they knew everything ?
1 reply
It's an interesting idea ( it does sound like Snocap, as said above) , and anything that can streamline some of the unecessary complexities of this business ( without being just a scheme to transform content creators into fodder for tech companies ) is certainly welcome. I share however many doubts that Shane T. above expressed. In fact , i don't quite see how this proposal relates to the title of the article "How to combat piracy" Piracy , by nature and by definition, doesn't conform to rules and laws. All one has to do is to setup pirate servers in a place where copyright infringement is almost the rule ( russia ? china?), and voilà.. Why would they care about this registry ? You'll just be told "to get lost" if you don't like it ( as Pirate Bay does). P2P networks don't have to play by the rules either, because they're not really centralised, they're not a business with an adress. However one slices and dices this subject, one has to realize that some form of enforceable laws are still needed.
1 reply
Well , you're basically describing music as a software application. There are already a few good ones out there , especially on the iOS platforms ( the Bjork ones are fantastic) But if you want true interactivity, connectivity etc.. you can't expect a common format, like what a CD or an mp3 file is. Because there is basically no such thing as a software format. Each platforms has it's own format. Software developped for iOS can't run on Androids ( and vice-versa), software for Windows can't play on OSX, wich in turn can't run on Linux, etc.. And it's not going to change anytime soon. And if you want this new format to really become succesful , it needs to be a common one. The only thing that comes even close is perhaps the HTML/CSS/Javascript combination ( same thing that runs in your web browser), but you still need to adapt it to EACH platform, unlike a simple mp3 wich can run almost universally ( precisely because it's not a complex file) I think there was already a thread about this here a few months ago , but the bottom line is that developping applications is a very , very hard thing to do, and very expensive to develop. It's certainly out of reach for most ordinary people ( heck, i know some musicians that are still battling with how to use their email application). And for this to really become a success , you need a format that can last ,for a little while, not something that will get replaced every x weeks by a new competing format, forcing people to rewrite completely their applications over and over again.. Music as software is certainly an interesting avenue to explore, but right now i don't see how this could become the new standard format for downloaded/owned music ( as opposed to streamed music) Ghostwriter
1 reply
+1 . Pressure is strong on artists ( and content creators in general) to give up and surender once and for all the rights for wich they fought during the last hundred years, in favor of multi-billion tech corporations. And many artists are getting convinced by the rethoric of such tech companies, and giving up, but it doesn't have to be like that.
1 reply
Yes, but wait : This is even more devilish that i thought ! Murfie has a used copy of an Adele album. Price 1$ - Buyer A buys it for 1$. He is now the owner. He doesn't need the physical CD, just the download. So Murfie keeps it. -Buyer B buys this cd from buyer A. He is now the owner. He doesn't need the physical CD, just the download. So Murfie keeps it. -Buyer C buys this cd from buyer B. He is now the owner. He doesn't need the physical CD, just the download. So Murfie keeps it. Repeat a few thousands/million times. Murfie gets 30% on each of these transactions. Only one CD was used. Artists get nothing of course. If you really want the CD here's what they say on their site :"In general, Murfie is designed for internet-based delivery, but we do offer physical delivery of CDs in your Murfie collection by special request." And it's 3$ for the delivery. You can bet 90% of people could care less about having the physical copy. It might be very hard to legally attack the way it works. I think this could be one of the most devilish rip off schemes ever devised. Megaupload & co are a bunch of kiddie amateurs compared to the ingenuity of this system. It's just sad to see so much brainpower deployed for such unethical endeavours.
1 reply
But you don't need to have the physical CD sent to you, when you buy one for 1$, right ? (in fact they seem to encourage you not to ) . So , basically, they get hold of one used CD, and sell multiple downloads to anybody who wants one , right ? And they don't have to pay copyright owners. And because it's up to users to send in used CD's , they can't be accused of facilitating upload of copyrighted material. Nice scheme. The level of ingenuity and energy being deployed to rip off artists is truly mind boggling. Ghostwriter
1 reply
GhostWriter is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 26, 2012