| Author |
Thread |
|
TheOneNOnly
Advanced Member
United States
1,937 posts
Joined: Oct, 2008
|
 Posted - 2011/03/23 : 14:46:27
I definitely wouldn't mind paying a few dollars on top of my ISP cost to support a cause like this. Assuming that the big corporations agree to do this willingly, how would the little guys get out? How would labels just starting off get into this action? Just something tells me those corporations who all joined up into this cause would use their gigantic e-peens to crush anyone trying to take a share of their market, which would be EXTREMELY centralized at that point.
__________________________________
New YouTube Account
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD One)
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD Two)
Alert moderator 
|
DJ Lawlzy
Advanced Member
Canada
520 posts
Joined: Oct, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 19:18:45
Putting more power in the hands of corporations or "music boards" as described to decide who is a legit artist does not sound like a good idea to me. I would not want some higher power to decide if I'm allowed to sell my music or not. I would also not want money made from music sales to be pooled then distributed by some "music board" to the artists.
__________________________________
~SUMMATIME~ new mix out now on Soundcloud!
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 19:25:56
Just like some are taking their "winnings against piracy" into even more anti-piracy works instead of paying the supposed losses. I doubt any systems like this will work in the end
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 21:10:37
I'm surprised how many people either didn't actually read the whole thing, or remember it.
You could still sell your music as you want. The only difference is there would be a national tax that everyone pays, to up your minimum wage and make it easier to make a living from music.
It doesn't affect royalties or how the music industry is operated.
It's like a pension for struggling musicians.
The board would decide who is eligible for the pension, nothing else.
.....Maybe i just explained it horribly haha... my bad sorry guys
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
Edited by - Future_Shock on 2011/03/23 23:46:39 |
TheOneNOnly
Advanced Member
United States
1,937 posts
Joined: Oct, 2008
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 23:50:16
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
I'm surprised how many people either didn't actually read the whole thing, or remember it.
You could still sell your music as you want. The only difference is there would be a national tax that everyone pays, to up your minimum wage and make it easier to make a living from music.
I made a reference as others that it would be difficult to track without a centralized approach. And as many of us stated, including myself, the bigger corporations would be the ones people would "turn too" to handle all of this type of stuff. Excluding that, they'd be the ones making the biggest pensions across the board.
__________________________________
New YouTube Account
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD One)
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD Two)
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/24 : 02:03:34
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
I'm surprised how many people either didn't actually read the whole thing, or remember it.
You could still sell your music as you want. The only difference is there would be a national tax that everyone pays, to up your minimum wage and make it easier to make a living from music.
I made a reference as others that it would be difficult to track without a centralized approach. And as many of us stated, including myself, the bigger corporations would be the ones people would "turn too" to handle all of this type of stuff. Excluding that, they'd be the ones making the biggest pensions across the board.
Well the only way i could see it working is if the board was a government entity, not owned by a corporation... which is what i had in mind anyway
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
DJ Lawlzy
Advanced Member
Canada
520 posts
Joined: Oct, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/24 : 02:20:39
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
I'm surprised how many people either didn't actually read the whole thing, or remember it.
You could still sell your music as you want. The only difference is there would be a national tax that everyone pays, to up your minimum wage and make it easier to make a living from music.
I made a reference as others that it would be difficult to track without a centralized approach. And as many of us stated, including myself, the bigger corporations would be the ones people would "turn too" to handle all of this type of stuff. Excluding that, they'd be the ones making the biggest pensions across the board.
Well the only way i could see it working is if the board was a government entity, not owned by a corporation... which is what i had in mind anyway
I wouldn't like the idea of putting the government in control of yet another aspect of our lives, especially such a personal and subjective thing as art, but that's just me.
__________________________________
~SUMMATIME~ new mix out now on Soundcloud!
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/24 : 02:49:23
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Lawlzy:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
I'm surprised how many people either didn't actually read the whole thing, or remember it.
You could still sell your music as you want. The only difference is there would be a national tax that everyone pays, to up your minimum wage and make it easier to make a living from music.
I made a reference as others that it would be difficult to track without a centralized approach. And as many of us stated, including myself, the bigger corporations would be the ones people would "turn too" to handle all of this type of stuff. Excluding that, they'd be the ones making the biggest pensions across the board.
Well the only way i could see it working is if the board was a government entity, not owned by a corporation... which is what i had in mind anyway
I wouldn't like the idea of putting the government in control of yet another aspect of our lives, especially such a personal and subjective thing as art, but that's just me.
Why though? If you qualify for it, awesome an extra 10 K a year to your salary as a professional musician. If you don't, then you just sell music the way you always have been.
Im sorry i just really don't understand your opposition to it? Maybe your government sucks but mines not so bad that i wouldn't take a free 10K a year if i fit the bill.
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
DJ Lawlzy
Advanced Member
Canada
520 posts
Joined: Oct, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/24 : 03:05:24
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Lawlzy:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
I'm surprised how many people either didn't actually read the whole thing, or remember it.
You could still sell your music as you want. The only difference is there would be a national tax that everyone pays, to up your minimum wage and make it easier to make a living from music.
I made a reference as others that it would be difficult to track without a centralized approach. And as many of us stated, including myself, the bigger corporations would be the ones people would "turn too" to handle all of this type of stuff. Excluding that, they'd be the ones making the biggest pensions across the board.
Well the only way i could see it working is if the board was a government entity, not owned by a corporation... which is what i had in mind anyway
I wouldn't like the idea of putting the government in control of yet another aspect of our lives, especially such a personal and subjective thing as art, but that's just me.
Why though? If you qualify for it, awesome an extra 10 K a year to your salary as a professional musician. If you don't, then you just sell music the way you always have been.
Im sorry i just really don't understand your opposition to it? Maybe your government sucks but mines not so bad that i wouldn't take a free 10K a year if i fit the bill.
The fact that you would have to qualify as an artist for this is not appealing to me. Music is an art form and to label artists as legitimate or illegitimate is not right, in my opinion because art is subjective. It's different from carpentry or programming, where there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. When we're at government level there's a lot of money involved and this system could be used to the advantage of corrupted feds and higher powers. On that note, no I don't trust the goverment (covering all governments, not just mine) would be honest with a system like this.
__________________________________
~SUMMATIME~ new mix out now on Soundcloud!
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/24 : 03:25:15
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Lawlzy:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Lawlzy:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
I'm surprised how many people either didn't actually read the whole thing, or remember it.
You could still sell your music as you want. The only difference is there would be a national tax that everyone pays, to up your minimum wage and make it easier to make a living from music.
I made a reference as others that it would be difficult to track without a centralized approach. And as many of us stated, including myself, the bigger corporations would be the ones people would "turn too" to handle all of this type of stuff. Excluding that, they'd be the ones making the biggest pensions across the board.
Well the only way i could see it working is if the board was a government entity, not owned by a corporation... which is what i had in mind anyway
I wouldn't like the idea of putting the government in control of yet another aspect of our lives, especially such a personal and subjective thing as art, but that's just me.
Why though? If you qualify for it, awesome an extra 10 K a year to your salary as a professional musician. If you don't, then you just sell music the way you always have been.
Im sorry i just really don't understand your opposition to it? Maybe your government sucks but mines not so bad that i wouldn't take a free 10K a year if i fit the bill.
The fact that you would have to qualify as an artist for this is not appealing to me. Music is an art form and to label artists as legitimate or illegitimate is not right, in my opinion because art is subjective. It's different from carpentry or programming, where there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. When we're at government level there's a lot of money involved and this system could be used to the advantage of corrupted feds and higher powers. On that note, no I don't trust the goverment (covering all governments, not just mine) would be honest with a system like this.
I get what you're saying. But here we already have an organisation that could regulate this. It's called APRA (Australasian performing rights association) An exerpt taken from their website:
"The Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) collects and distributes licence fees for the public performance and communication of our members' musical works. The Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS) collects and distributes mechanical royalties for the reproduction of our members' musical works."
APRA/AMCOS is the australiasian equivalent of PRS/MCPS in the UK. These organisations work on the benefit of artists to get the money they deserve from royalties. All big artists in australia are a part of APRA/AMCOS just like in the UK artists are members of PRS/MCPS. It's a common thing, and even hardcore artists in the UK are recognized by PRS and MCPS. It's not corrupt, it operates, and gains money to fund itself, by musicians making money.
This is the sort of organization i had in mind to run this sort of thing. It could be government sactioned and distributed (because of the tax) but in australia (for example) it would be run by APRA/AMCOS and in the UK it'd be run by PRS.
I mean i understand what you're saying. It could be exploitable... But so can anything under any circumstances.
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
H3RO
Junior Member
United States
145 posts
Joined: Jun, 2010
|
Posted - 2011/03/24 : 04:06:50
I think Andy's idea is a really valid one, and everyone else raises valid points as well. In regards to the "qualifying as an artist," what if there was like a tier system in place? The committee or organization that runs the "pension" program would set standards of popularity, i.e. number of downloads a month or something similar, and depending on how many downloads you have, you would get placed in the appropriate tier. The tier you would be placed in would then determine the amount of money per year, month, etc. that you would receive. And once you make it into a tier, you could always move up or down the ladder depending on popularity.
Alert moderator
|
Underloop
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,895 posts
Joined: Mar, 2002
91 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2011/03/24 : 08:00:38
There is an awful lot of valid points, and I think points which have already been suggested prior to talks of taxes on ISPs and on blank media (CDs and DVDs).
Just a few points against the idea though:
- If I wasn't interested in music, I wouldn't be happy paying more tax to fund it. Even if it went to cover current PRS fees.
- The cost of managing such a system would be huge - 2 choices, either the artists get less, or the tax goes up.
- Like has already been said, everybody needs to subscribe to this idea for it to work. There are already plenty of industries where people are recognised as being professionals - I'm a chartered engineer which means I am on a registered list of engineers of a certain standard with the Engineering Council. Whilst the system works quite well, it still leaves a lot to be desired, and certainly many people wish they got more out of it. I pay over 200 a year for this, most of which goes into admin and running of the organisation which I get my licence through. Just to put it into context a bit. With your 300 in mind, that would leave 100 left to be distributed to the artists - and how would that distribution be decided fairly? An internet wide monitoring system would need to be used, and still I feel that piracy would happen.
- Where would pirate radio fall into this system? A significant portion of artist royalties comes from radio and club play - would the current system for this stay the same?
Just my waffling 2 cents - none of it meant as criticism of the original idea, just trying to work it through in my head how it could work
__________________________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing."
- George Bernard Shaw
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/24 : 08:04:16
quote:
Originally posted by Underloop:
There is an awful lot of valid points, and I think points which have already been suggested prior to talks of taxes on ISPs and on blank media (CDs and DVDs).
Just a few points against the idea though:
- If I wasn't interested in music, I wouldn't be happy paying more tax to fund it. Even if it went to cover current PRS fees.
- The cost of managing such a system would be huge - 2 choices, either the artists get less, or the tax goes up.
- Like has already been said, everybody needs to subscribe to this idea for it to work. There are already plenty of industries where people are recognised as being professionals - I'm a chartered engineer which means I am on a registered list of engineers of a certain standard with the Engineering Council. Whilst the system works quite well, it still leaves a lot to be desired, and certainly many people wish they got more out of it. I pay over 200 a year for this, most of which goes into admin and running of the organisation which I get my licence through. Just to put it into context a bit. With your 300 in mind, that would leave 100 left to be distributed to the artists - and how would that distribution be decided fairly? An internet wide monitoring system would need to be used, and still I feel that piracy would happen.
- Where would pirate radio fall into this system? A significant portion of artist royalties comes from radio and club play - would the current system for this stay the same?
Just my waffling 2 cents - none of it meant as criticism of the original idea, just trying to work it through in my head how it could work
I like that people are thinking about it and posting discussion topics - that was the intent. Obviously it's not going to happen just cos i mentioned it on a forum, so the only thing we can do is discuss it. You made some good points and i agree it's not a concrete idea, it was just a theory i had.
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
deejaybee
Average Member
United Kingdom
193 posts
Joined: Jun, 2001
|
Posted - 2011/03/25 : 09:34:57
A national tax? What about the people who dont enjoy music? Or even those who may spend much less than 1% of their salary on music currently?
It seems silly, its written by someone who clearly spends more than 1% of their salary on music at the moment (probably the majority of this site) so it seems like a good deal but for someone like my mother... who has little or no interest in new music and has already purchased all of the tracks that she wants to listen to, this would be silly.
Could you imagine the treasury announcing a tax for music? Haha.. That would go down like a lead baloon!
I think a better idea would be for hardcore to man up a bit and stop being so hypicritical (I was guilty of this too)... How can a genre be so "Anti-Filesharing" and anti-piracy yet rip off so many artists in the process?
Scott Brown is my personal favourite hardcore doosh bag... forever paranoid about people not paying for his music yet using endless samples and uncleared vocals in almost everything he considers making a living from.
__________________________________
Hardcore, Its Everything That I Stand For.
Alert moderator
|
|
Printer friendly
