Re: Design principles and ethics

[Michal Suchanek]

On 5/4/06, Christopher Nelson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > "The most successful musicians earn performance or recording
> > fees  that far exceed the median earnings."
> >
> > I interpret this in the following way: Recording fees do not
> > provide a significant source of income to any musician but
> > the most successful.
> >
> > The above paragraph indicates that the major source of income
> > are teaching or jobs unrelated to music.
> >
> > There is only one conclusion we can draw from this: The
> > current system fails utterly to reimburse musicians for
> > making music.  So, whatever the answer is, it is not recording fees.
>
> Let me put it to you this way: did most people involved in the gold rush
> get rich? No.  It was the *promise* of wealth that attracted them.
> While it is true that some people perform because they love whatever it
> is they do, on the pragmatic side, the largest lure for most is fame and
> fortune.  Granted, most do not make it, but if that lure was not there,
> far fewer would be interested in the pursuit.
>
> I say this not because I think that the pursuit of fame and fabulous
> wealth is a good thing, but to illustrate the fallicy that I feel you
> are falling prey to when looking at the raw statistics.

Even people that want to become famous and rich do not benefit from
copyright. Copyright does nothing to secure fame, only their own work
does. Once they are famous they can request exorbitant prices for
thier works or performances. The (non)existence of copyright does not
change anything on that.

> > Lawrence Lessig analyzed in his book Free Culture how "big
> > media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and
> > control creativity"
> > (this is the subtitle).  Never before in history of mankind
> > did so few control so much of our culture as today.  This,
> > not the lack of monetary compensation, is what inhibits
> > creativity.  This is the obstacle that has to be removed to
> > allow people to be more creative, to produce more content
> > that is more relevant to people.  The claim that reproduction
> > fees are good for artists is a sham.
>
> Reproduction fees are good for *successful* artists.  People make money
> off of giving other people what they want.  So while it is true that a
> few wealthy individuals have a lot of control over culture, they
> wouldn't be wealthy if they weren't giving people what they wanted.
>
> Let me add that I personally feel that they give people what they
> *think* they want, or else think they *should* want.  But that is a
> spiritual/moral point.

No, the reproduction fees are good for publishers (ie labels) in the
first pace, and only in the second place for the successful artists.
The publishers are somehow in the position to dictate the terms of
contracts, and they make sure the terms are favoreble to them.

Thanks

Michal