Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Steven,
Where do you stand on copyright law? Are writers entitled to the rights to their work, or is the act of creation automatically public domain? And shouldn't the writers get to decide whether their work is offered this way?
If there's more money to be made on a Google model, they'll sell it that way. If the money is really going to Google and its advertisers, why should they write it?
The problem, similar to the problems musicians face, is that work is easily duplicated and distributed. If suddenly whatever work engineers do is readily replicated, should that then be public domain? Should all work be publicly owned?
Should all the work you do during the week be free, with you getting paid if people happen to click on an ad near it?
Just a few thoughts.
MM, the Internet has been around for over fifteen years. During that tine, print media has steadily lost ground while online news has gained in popularity.
The print media has spent all that time sitting on its thumbs. Craigslist has prospered by only offering the classifieds online. Google has fused advertising with search and prospered. There are ways to prosper in new media, none of which print media has investigated.
I do have to say that I'm grateful that Murdoch hasn't asked for a handout from Uncle Sam, but I still don't like his idea of pay-for-info.
To answer your question directly, I went into a field that is NOT supported by advertising. It's got its own challenges, specifically that engineering is being offshored, and I'm not sure how to deal with that except to be prepared to change jobs at the drop of a hat.
Thanks, Steven.
Writing and music are both far, far different than when I started, too. So yes, I had to learn to be a businessman.
Print indeed has been dragging its feet. Interesting dilemma now, though. I used to buy the NY Times on Sundays at least, because I like papers/books in my hand better than online. As the price climbed, though, I stopped. Thing is--the Times online is a better product, updated quickly, interactive, searchable. For free.
For a while they were promoting Times Select, for a fee. I had a free subscription one year through the college. What's select about it? Nothing there impressive. Now, if it had been something kick ass--seriously in depth features, or an excellent literary magazine, something....that would be different. Besides, it was easy to hack into for free via search engines.
The one advantage I do see is targeted advertising. I'm uncomfortable with the invasion of privacy, but ads geared to exactly my historical interests makes sense. When Amazon recommends a book, I'm sometimes actually interested. That's progress.
But on the other hand, I (and several other musicians) stopped making albums in the 80s. I was doing fine, but breaking even on the albums, as the distributors switched their focus from marking product to marketing catalog ad space to artists. I wasn't a starry eyed kid waiting for some elusive big break. I recognized I was working for no gain, and even though I had three albums with international sales, I switched my efforts elsewhere (I even worked for the distributors for a few years). Today, I often hear people complain that music today is commercial and predictable, that we don't have the creative innovations we used to have. My response is, "Duh. Of course."
People can't both value something and refuse to pay for it. I'm odd among all my acquaintances in that I don't burn CDs for other people. If I want to share, I'll buy another copy. Same with books.
But as for whatever dies in the marketplace, we just didn't want it as much as we said we did. Or didn't think about it enough.
Tim
< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 12/19/2009 7:21:40 AM >
|
A non-free press. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread