NOT The biggest secret in the music industry

[flyfisher]

Well I, for one, benefited a fair bit by being able to get a mortgage and I'd hazard a guess that millions of other people did as well. I'd also hazard a guess that there are quite a few businesses that have reason to thank the banks for providing the necessary finance to help run and grow their businesses.

You may well be serious, but so am I. Anti-banker sentiment, in the manner expressed, is little more than pandering to popular opinion without taking full and honest account of the reality of things. Yes, banks have immense power but we should be asking why that is? Could it be because they provide an essential service? A bit like oil companies really, but it's not popular to slag off fat cat oil billionaires is it?

And to save your imagination, yes I am being provocative - I'm trying to provoke people into thinking beyond the superficial headline stuff and discuss why things are the way they are. I realise that puts me at risk of being miscontrued as an apologist for (in this case) bankers or whatever (which I am most certainly not), but that's a risk I'm prepared to take in the pursuit of a more thoughful discussion.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1389382176' post='2333749']
So if a company's designers design some technology.......a phone a computer, a Jumbo Jet perhaps? It's ok for another company to reverse engineer that bit of technology, build a copy and sell it to enrich themselves at the expense of the original company?

I'm not so sure.
[/quote]

I'm afraid that I can't see the relationship between protection by patents and the like, and having money come in without (further...) working for it. Preventing copies is one thing, people paying for what has already been paid for, over and over again, is another.

[UglyDog]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389377114' post='2333628']
I'll try, but you surely won't agree. I maintain that it's 'unfair' (I would say 'immoral'...) to have someone receiving money when no work is being done ('work' in the wider sense, including artistic creation...).
[/quote]
Ok so we've already established that you think it's unfair. My point is, to whom do you believe it is unfair? Who is losing out IYHO?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1389436616' post='2334083']
Ok so we've already established that you think it's unfair. My point is, to whom do you believe it is unfair? Who is losing out IYHO?
[/quote]

OK then, but first we'll have to (try to...) establish a few 'givens', simply for the purposes of illustration. I hold them to be generally true; all may not agree, or try to 'squirm'. Here we go...
To me, 'wealth' is a closed system. There is a finite amount, and what is held by one person (or institution...) is not held by another. It would, in theory, be possible to re-distribute the whole lot, and start again, with every individual on the planet holding the same amount. For obvious (and less so...) reasons, this is not possible. The result, though, is the same; what comes to one person (or institution...) doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from someone else. Often several 'someone elses'. In this tortuous flow, the millions paid to a footballer or banker come, in dribs, drabs and drops, from hundreds, thousands, sometimes more individuals and/or institutions. When one sees an ad on the television for soap powder, that ad is paid for by those who buy that product. A bankers bonus is paid by those that frequent or invest in that bank. The sums 'earned' (..?) by rich musicians comes from those that buy their products (disks, concerts, bobble hats...). In dribs, drabs and drops, these are the folks (or institutions...) that are losing their own paid-for hours of work to allow others to receive income for doing nothing (more...).
One may retort that all of the above is a naive, simplistic view, or disprove any or all. Could be. There is, however, another aspect which I'll advance: I consider (perhaps alone...) that, independently of any 'winners/losers', there is a moral component, whereby some actions are 'right' and others less so, whatever the financial outcome. Despite being, ultimately, a nihilist (ie: belief in no absolutes...), I have my own personal set of moral values which both dictate my own behaviour and guide my judgement (read: vision, or appreciation...) of the actions of others. In this sense, whether or not one may 'prove' the winning or losing, there remains a sense of 'justice' whereby getting something for nothing (more...) is not, imo, 'right' in itself.
There. Now fire away, if you wish.

[redstriper]

I remember being very surprised when I found out that the radio and TV paid me royalties every time they played my music.
I had been thinking airplay would help advertise my recordings, therefore generating sales and promoting gigs.
I would have gladly paid to get my songs on the radio, now I realise the airplay itself is the main income from my recordings.

I gladly receive my PRS royalties, but I still consider them unfair and undeserved.

I suppose if performing rights didn't exist, the immediate result would be a reduction in the TV license and less adverts required on commercial TV and radio, since that is where the money comes from.

[chris_b]

4 pages in and you guys are still cracking me up!

You've created something, a song in this case, and a business is using what you've created for business purposes; ie to make money for themselves.

It is entirely reasonable that they pay you for the use of your product.

The view that it's somehow not right for creative people to make money and a living out of their talents and ideas is absolute bollocks.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389441054' post='2334133']...The view that it's somehow not right for creative people to make money and a living out of their talents and ideas is absolute bollocks.[/quote]

...but that's not what's being discussed, is it..? Everyone has the right to have their just labour justly rewarded. No dispute there. The rest is just personal opinion. I don't approve of getting paid, year after year, when the work is over, that's all. Others (yourself included, perhaps...) think otherwise. No big deal.

[discreet]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389385109' post='2333799']
Yes, banks have immense power but we should be asking why that is? Could it be because they provide an essential service? A bit like oil companies really, but it's not popular to slag off fat cat oil billionaires is it?

And to save your imagination, yes I am being provocative - I'm trying to provoke people into thinking beyond the superficial headline stuff and discuss why things are the way they are. I realise that puts me at risk of being miscontrued as an apologist for (in this case) bankers or whatever (which I am most certainly not), but that's a risk I'm prepared to take in the pursuit of a more thoughful discussion.
[/quote]

Nevertheless, I still don't believe banking is inherently of use to society in the same way music is. Banking is a way of making money for bankers. It is not inherently creative or imaginative. Apples and pears. Banks have immense power because they are experienced lobbyists who make large donations to political parties. 50% of Tory funds come from the City (for example). And there are members of the cabinet whose families have been in banking for generations. No conflict of interest there, right?

Whether it is popular or not, I will slag off fat-cat oil billionaires at every opportunity. They will become even richer as oil becomes scarcer. Supply and demand, one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. The strongest nations play 'last man standing' as the oil pond dries up. War, famine, poverty and pestilence, coming soon to a planet near you. Another whole thread right there.

And I don't think being deliberately provocative risks one being construed as an apologist, necessarily - there is a much greater risk that it will be interpreted as the work of one who lurks under a bridge. Being Devil's Advocate [i]may [/i]be a valid way to pursue a thoughtful discussion, but if it is not done with levity, wit and discernment it will likely cause offence - which is not the intended result, I'm sure.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389441548' post='2334143']...Another whole thread right there...[/quote]

These subjects, and their multiple visions on Society, are interlinked. The 'billionaire' phenomenon has its roots and causes in any and all of these concepts, in the (un...) holy name of 'free market', or capitalism, or democracy etc. If one comes under discussion, most, if not all, of the others apply too. A radical solution is the only way through this sticky treacle of a problem, but there's not many geese wanting to vote for Christmas. The times they are, however, a'changin', as pronounced by that mouth-organ bloke, and we'll see (or our children will...) what's to become of it all. Can it go on forever..? Hmm... I predict tears for some.

[TimR]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389438001' post='2334102']


...
To me, 'wealth' is a closed system. There is a finite amount,
...
[/quote]

That's where you're going wrong.

[discreet]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389443366' post='2334174']
These subjects, and their multiple visions on Society, are interlinked. The 'billionaire' phenomenon has its roots and causes in any and all of these concepts, in the (un...) holy name of 'free market', or capitalism, or democracy etc. If one comes under discussion, most, if not all, of the others apply too. A radical solution is the only way through this sticky treacle of a problem, but there's not many geese wanting to vote for Christmas. The times they are, however, a'changin', as pronounced by that mouth-organ bloke, and we'll see (or our children will...) what's to become of it all. Can it go on forever..? Hmm... I predict tears for some.
[/quote]

Not many geese wanting to vote for Christmas just about hits the nail there, Doug. For most people the problem is so big that they won't even consider it, and if they do, they won't admit it's real. Much easier to watch the new series of The Voice and look at new bass gear online (I'm just as guilty as anyone, by the way).

It's this kind of short-term, quick-fix lack of vision that got us in this mess in the first place - you'd expect some kind of inspirational leadership from those who would govern us, but no chance of that I'm afraid. Our past and current leaders are just not good role models, to put it mildly. I'm afraid the only way that necessary change is going to happen is through the biggest catastrophe the world has seen since that meteorite put paid to the dinosaurs.

I have lots of relevant links on the subject, but I'm not going to post them - don't want to ruin your weekend any more than is necessary.

Edited January 11, 2014 by discreet

[discreet]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389444237' post='2334191']
That's where you're going wrong.
[/quote]

All wealth ultimately comes out of the ground - it is finite.

[TimR]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389444281' post='2334195']


All wealth ultimately comes out of the ground - it is finite.
[/quote]

No it doesn't. It isn't. That's why we moved away from the gold standard. There's not enough gold to go around.

Edited January 11, 2014 by TimR

[discreet]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389444982' post='2334206']
There's not enough gold to go around.
[/quote]

That must be why it's so valuable at the moment.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389444237' post='2334191']
That's where you're going wrong.
[/quote]

Oh. OK, then.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389444254' post='2334193']...I have lots of relevant links on the subject, but I'm not going to post them - don't want to ruin your weekend any more than is necessary. [/quote]

Thanks for the kind thought, although I wasn't thinking of snuffing it this weekend, anyway.
Despite appearances, I'm fairly well clued up, in any case. I'm not wanting to be a Cassandra, nor be a martyr, and have absolutely no 'cause'. I wish I had the 'magic bullet' answer to all this mic-mac, but I'm only small. My only reaction is to partake as little as I can cope with in the whole merry-go-round, although I'm caught up too. The modern term would be 'reducing one's footprint'. Can't do much more, although I sincerely think we've seen the best days of it all. To take the words of another songster (do I have to pay for them..? ), referring to the 'window' of the '60s-'70s...
"It's been a long time coming; it's going to be a long time gone."

[TimR]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389445293' post='2334209']


That must be why it's so valuable at the moment.
[/quote]

Yes. It's more useful in electronics than being used as a 'token' indication of wealth.

There will come a time when we laugh about wearing it on our fingers.

[TimR]

Dad's point of having wealth based on time works to a point but the thing he is missing is my time is worth different amounts at different points in time depending on the benefit it is to others. Not to ME.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389446438' post='2334225']
Dad's point of having wealth based on time works to a point but the thing he is missing is my time is worth different amounts at different points in time depending on the benefit it is to others. Not to ME.
[/quote]

That's where you're going wrong.

[TimR]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389446512' post='2334228']


That's where you're going wrong.
[/quote]

Good news. When are you going to pay me to sleep on your sofa, I'll be straight round.

[discreet]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389446119' post='2334220']
Yes. It's more useful in electronics than being used as a 'token' indication of wealth.
There will come a time when we laugh about wearing it on our fingers.
[/quote]

Precisely my point. It's a finite resource that comes out of the ground. There is no 'virtual' gold.

[whynot]

What a load of bollocks.
Why shouldn't a writer, either through natural talent or hard graft to create something that people want, receive royalties when used, as other parties are feeding of that work all along the way.
Just my opinion of course.

[TimR]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389447089' post='2334236']


Precisely my point. It's a finite resource that comes out of the ground. There is no 'virtual' gold.
[/quote]

Having currency based on a finite resource doesn't work. We don't all need the same amount of money all at the same time. Sometimes we need lots of it, sometimes we don't need any. It's just a tool.

I firmly believe we are going though a very complicated point in history where the wealth is slowly being balanced out across the world. This may take a 100years or more but it will happen. In the mean time those of us who had huge sums of wealth are going to suffer for a bit.

Dad has a point in that so what if Sting has millions of pounds and big villas? He still only has a finite amount of time. If he uses his time productively to create and inspire and presumably he redistributes his wealth on a regular basis, that's fine by me.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='whynot' timestamp='1389447479' post='2334240']
What a load of bollocks.
Why shouldn't a writer, either through natural talent or hard graft to create something that people want, receive royalties when used, as other parties are feeding of that work all along the way.
Just my opinion of course.
[/quote]

Testicles or not, that's an argument based on jealousy. If that's OK for you, there's no issue. personally I don't follow that line, but, there you go.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389447802' post='2334245']... If he uses his time productively to create and inspire and presumably he redistributes his wealth on a regular basis, that's fine by me.[/quote]

Now here we are in agreement. He (or anyone/everyone else on Earth...) can continue to contribute, and be justly rewarded for his contribution. No problem here, folks...