开云体育

From the article linked below:
"In 2008, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed that 750,000 Americans had

been

put out of work by illegal file-sharing (2). *Wired* magazine crunched

the

numbers and discovered that, were the Chamber of Commerce's claims

correct,

the number put out of work by illegal file-sharing would account for

eight

per cent of the unemployed workforce in the US (3). To call the US

Chamber

of Commerce's claims hyperbole would be an understatement. Meanwhile the
legal crusade against individuals continues full speed-ahead: Joel
Tenenbaum, a American student convicted of illegal file-sharing, has been
ordered to pay damages of $675,000 which amounts to a staggering $22,500

per

song (4)."

"still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

I referred to that passage because I felt that it helped clarify some of the
"facts" floating around this thread.
The rest is theory and opinion. Never once does the idea of the schlok
"quality" of the content ever enter into the possible reasons as to why
these industries are "suffering". One has only to look at the coverage of
news on the networks.. It's more important how these airheads look than
whether they have any knowledge concerning the matters whereof they speak...

I seriously wonder how many here who are defending the record companies vs.
the internet have lost great fortunes (or even .30垄) due to piracy on the
intertubes...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And one last thought. Just how many jazz musicians, particularly you older
guys like me, have never used a fakebook? ;-)

Ah, but everyone paid for them, and so the composers were well paid from
those sales...(i!)

--- In jazz_guitar@..., Angelo <angelo.nyc@...> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:45 AM, akmbirch <akmbirch@...> wrote:

Content producers of the world unite!
By focusing on consumption, both sides in the debate over illegal
file-sharing ignore the value of creative labour.
Jason Walsh

"Everyone and their dog knows that the media is being torn asunder by the
forces unleashed by the internet. Almost every movie ever made is available
on BitTorrent, half of television's history is easily accessible worldwide
courtesy of copyright-flouting Chinese video websites and, despite the
success of legitimate services such as iTunes and Spotify, illegal downloads
continue to dwarf online music sales. Then there are newspapers, almost all
of which appear to be unprofitable - a situation that, by all accounts, is
only going to get worse for producers."

More:

From the article linked below:
"In 2008, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed that 750,000 Americans had been
put out of work by illegal file-sharing (2). *Wired* magazine crunched the
numbers and discovered that, were the Chamber of Commerce's claims correct,
the number put out of work by illegal file-sharing would account for eight
per cent of the unemployed workforce in the US (3). To call the US Chamber
of Commerce's claims hyperbole would be an understatement. Meanwhile the
legal crusade against individuals continues full speed-ahead: Joel
Tenenbaum, a American student convicted of illegal file-sharing, has been
ordered to pay damages of $675,000 which amounts to a staggering $22,500 per
song (4)."

"still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

I think this is a great article that Alisdair has pointed us to.

Angelo I suggest keep reading the rest of the article. Some more quotes:

"Set against this is a growing movement of internet users who thumb their noses at the media industry, often using the rhetoric of anti-corporation activists. It is not uncommon to read on internet forums populated by the technorati such as Slashdot that cultural production - music, books, visual art, journalism - should be a hobby, not a job. A typical analogy is that media companies are like `buggy whip' manufacturers - that is, they are about to be put out of business by a new technology, just as the makers of horse-and-trap accessories were ruined by the motor car.

What theories like this miss is that, seductive as it is, such technological determinism underestimates social factors and individual volition. This simple fact hasn't stopped it from being raised to the status of a homespun ideology with its own gurus in the form of journalists Jeff Jarvis, Chris Anderson and others (only in journalism would practitioners be paid to celebrate the decline of their means of making a living).

While there's little doubt that the distribution systems for culture are in the process of changing, this does not mean that the activities themselves are outmoded. In fact, there has always been tremendous pressure on artists to quit and find something else to do. Philip Glass worked as a plumber before he started to profit from being a composer. Art is hard and market economies aren't renowned for being fair. The question today is, will a young composer stick to the pipes and forget about the symphonies? If the chance of getting paid is effectively zero then many undoubtedly will."

"Richard Stallman, the de facto leader of the free software movement that has swept the world of information technology argues that while sharing is inevitable and to be encouraged, this doesn't mean artists should necessarily go unpaid. Stallman, a committed anti-copyright activist who insists the term `intellectual property' is fundamentally misleading, makes an exception for works of art: `The purpose of copyright - on musical recordings, or anything else - is simple: to encourage writing and art.'"

"What all of these varying theses conveniently ignore is that money is not actually produced from thin air. Money, capital if you like, is rooted in actual social relationships between people. Simply wishing that things should be free or that money can be produced out of thin air doesn't mean they should be - and only a culture that has no real understanding of work would ever argue otherwise.

In a very real sense copyright is used as a tool to manage - and create - artificial scarcity. But simply demanding it is abolished won't create a socialist - or capitalist - utopia on the net. In fact, all it will do is devalue labour even further."

Bobby Wrote,

To find that NY Congressman John Hall is unwilling to protect copyright
law (because he WAS a musician?) is inexcusable. His office should be
bombarded every hour of every day by irate creative people and
supporters of the arts with letters telling him just what a pussy he is.

Dave Woods

One thing I learned about politics, from dealing with the provincial
government of Poughkeepsie NY where poor people are concerned, and dealing
with the administration at Green Haven maximum security prison, where I
taught for free, is that politics is a "shark tank".

The proclaimed purpose of these aggregations is to work together for the
common good. However, in my opinion, nothing could be further from the
truth. Let anybody make a mistake, or in any way lay themselves open to an
accusation of a conflict of interests, and the waters of the "shark tank"
are churned to a bloody froth.

Two types of people are attracted to the "tank", the super insecure who want
control over others, and people who are idealistic, care, and truly want to
make a difference. They also jump into the "tank". The ones who are the
most dishonest, are the ones who's fins are the first to come slicing
through the water toward the smell of blood.

Idealistic newcomers catch on to this quickly. They have two choices,
knuckle under sink in, and become an integral part of the political slime,
or watch their ass. Those who watch their ass, survive hopefully to do some
good for us. I'm sure that John Hall is aware of our plight out here. A
great deal of influence is exerted on members of congress off stage, with
each other. I prefer to believe that he's still working in our behalf,
while he guards against getting his left leg bitten off.

As far as this controversial legislation that would block pirate sites, and
maybe stifle our freedom of speech on the internet is concerned, progress is
always "out of the frying pan" into the next type of fire.

Dave Woods

Just buy both.... You don't want to stand in the way of commerce, do
you?

... I do have both ... but they do not exchange files ... that's the point
of
the problem ....
... In fact, no one needs to "stand in the way of commerce" when they have
that
"proprietarily" covered all by themselves .....

This is a good opportunity for a third-party developer to come up with a
program that can convert these formats in a better way than XML...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:45 AM, akmbirch <akmbirch@...> wrote:

Content producers of the world unite!
By focusing on consumption, both sides in the debate over illegal
file-sharing ignore the value of creative labour.
Jason Walsh

"Everyone and their dog knows that the media is being torn asunder by the
forces unleashed by the internet. Almost every movie ever made is available
on BitTorrent, half of television's history is easily accessible worldwide
courtesy of copyright-flouting Chinese video websites and, despite the
success of legitimate services such as iTunes and Spotify, illegal downloads
continue to dwarf online music sales. Then there are newspapers, almost all
of which appear to be unprofitable - a situation that, by all accounts, is
only going to get worse for producers."

More:

From the article linked below:
"In 2008, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed that 750,000 Americans had been
put out of work by illegal file-sharing (2). *Wired* magazine crunched the
numbers and discovered that, were the Chamber of Commerce抯 claims correct,
the number put out of work by illegal file-sharing would account for eight
per cent of the unemployed workforce in the US (3). To call the US Chamber
of Commerce抯 claims hyperbole would be an understatement. Meanwhile the
legal crusade against individuals continues full speed-ahead: Joel
Tenenbaum, a American student convicted of illegal file-sharing, has been
ordered to pay damages of $675,000 which amounts to a staggering $22,500 per
song (4)."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:22 AM, akmbirch <akmbirch@...> wrote:

Scary Thought: Are Musicians Doing Worse Than Ever Before?
Friday, October 29, 2010


Music fans are doing better than ever in history, that is never debated.
But not only are artists struggling these days, they actually might be
worse off than they were 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. We're so used to
hearing about how liberated musicians are, how easily they can connect to
fans and the greater percentages they're earning. But talk to an actual
artist, and most will say that their actual earnings haven't changed at all
- and it may be getting worse.

It may take years before we understand what's truly happening here, though
artists currently have less access to financial backers and supporters.
Sure, the big label is often deleted from the discussion, but so are their
once-deep pockets.

But even outside of that system, plenty of artists were gigging and paying
the bills back in the day. "In 1980 I was a full time musician, earning a
true middle class living," independent musician Clark Colborn commented to
Digital Music News. "And I knew dozens of other full time musicians living
in or near our city [Rockford, IL] making about the same income. Now, I
think Rick Nielsen (Cheap Trick) is the only full time rock musician living
in our city. The musical middle class, which many of these so-called
experts claim didn't exist until the last decade or so, is a myth."

Then again, who's kidding who? It's never been easy to be an artist - and
that's why your parents begged you to put down that horn. But gigging
musicians are definitely struggling, and even established artists like
Imogen Heap are having trouble making road economics work. "I've been
telling people this, but the ones who believe it's a wonderful time to be a
musician don't want to know that for most musicians it is actually harder to
make a living now," noted Suzanne Lainson, head of research at Brands Plus
Music, also in the same thread. "A lot of the local gigs that sustained
bands/musicians in the past are gone. Or if they still exist, they pay less
money. And it used to be that local/regional bands could make good money
selling CDs (and before that cassettes) directly to fans at shows."

But, what about the incredible opportunities presented by direct-to-fan
relationships? Shouldn't things like demographically-detailed email lists
and cultivated superfans be changing the calculus? That's the rap of most
DIYers, though perhaps the elements that created those opportunities are
also working against musicians as well. The noise floor is often
impenetrable, simply because every artist suddenly has equal footing. But
beyond that, potential fans are more inundated with information, tweets,
text messages, and screens than ever before in history. Perhaps the net
result is simply negative.

Hmmm.... not a word about piracy.

"...I have always liked John Hall, but now I question his integrity."

Bobby,

Should John Hall vote yes on this it would ONLY be seen as self-serving in political circles. It would ONLY undermine the movement.

Joe

Really excited to see Eric Krasno live... bluesy, funky, great player.

Hi Dave,

As far as this controversial legislation that would block pirate sites, and
maybe stifle our freedom of speech on the internet is concerned, progress is
always "out of the frying pan" into the next type of fire.

True enough. But I think his answer was a cop out. There is far more at stake here than the music business. It involves all media - music, newspapers, movies, books, art, photographs, &c, the list is endless.

By recusing himself from voting, I feel (perhaps wrongly, perhaps not) that he is deliberately refusing to challenge the private interest groups such as YouTube, Google, &c. I question as to why he would protect the interest groups who are making tone of money at the expense of all other media, who are losing billions of dollars. In other words, "What's in it for John Hall?".

If he chose to represent all media groups, he could hardly be accused of conflict of interest because he owns a few tune copyrights.

I have always liked John Hall, but now I question his integrity.

best,
Bobby

--- In jazz_guitar@..., George Hess <ghess1000@...> wrote:

(snip)

Ultimately, the business of music is going to change. Those who learn to take advantage of it will survive and thrive, others not so much. Recording has only been around for about 100 years. Before that things were different. When radio came into being, things changed again. When talking pictures became popular vaudeville died. Things change, life goes on. Get over it.

No-one doubts the music business is changing, that is not the issue. The issue is what is the right direction to head. Many times people blog the statement "get over it". All the musicians I know all too well that things have changed, what they are asking is what is the direction to head? Online MP3 sales are not doing it. Streaming radio and MP3s are not doing it, they are still arguing over royalty payments. Local gigs are not doing it. Touring looked hopeful but many have lost money or found it hard to break even. Facebook and Myspace have delivered very little other than publicity. So to help "get over it" what is the right direction to head? Suggestions?

Mark

I have used both programs since their early days.

Both have improved.

However, in terms of acceptance I would say that Sibelius has gained ground ever since publishing houses like Hal Leonard choose it as their in-house publishing tool. I get more requests to produce Sibelius files.

The September issues of Film Music Magazine has an article:

Sibelius vs. Finale: How To Choose?


Back in 2008 many serious composers were ranting about Finale's bugs,
some of them have been fixed.



--
Alisdair MacRae Birch
Guitarist/Bassist/Educator/Arranger

I've been following this discussion between Alistair, Angelo, Bobby and other, but have been too busy to chime in. So here's my $.02

I teach technology to musicians and I am a strong supporter of using the Internet to market musicians. However, I am persuaded by Alistair's argument that companies like Google (YouTube) and others that make money off of streaming copyrighted materials should be made to pay royalties. IMHO, that should be the focal point of any attempt to revise the intellectual property laws. Services that sell songs like iTunes or Amazon should also be paying the royalties they claim to offer. But if they aren't that's a matter of contract law not copyright. There should also be a profit factor involved. When someone posts a video of their vacation and adds one of their favorite songs as a soundtrack, it's simply ridiculous for the recording companies to insist it be removed. Nobody is downloading that video to get the song and the poster probably bought it in the first place.

While I think piracy at first had a lot to do with the decline in CD sales, evidence points now more towards the streaming services. Consumers now are more interested in access than acquisition. I have no use for the Limewires, Napsters or Bit Torrents, but they are much less of a factor that they once were. There is data to support this. Suing kids and welfare moms for downloading is just plain stupid. They look like Scrooge and the Grinch wrapped into one.

Where I'm not persuaded is in the legitimacy of copyright laws in general. The current 75 years after the death of the composer was enacted at the behest of publishing companies, not artists. Patents don't last anywhere near as long. Who in their right mind would say that "Happy Birthday" deserves better protection than penicillin or the polio vaccine? Just because it's a law doesn't make it moral or right. And when laws are unjust they tend to get violated. I certainly don't begrudge Dave Woods' profiting from his dad's songs and he does a lot of good work with the money, but most of these copyrights are held by publishing companies that bought catalogs for a pittance. This isn't about artists, it's about corporations. Music should be in the public domain sooner.

Ultimately, the business of music is going to change. Those who learn to take advantage of it will survive and thrive, others not so much. Recording has only been around for about 100 years. Before that things were different. When radio came into being, things changed again. When talking pictures became popular vaudeville died. Things change, life goes on. Get over it.

And one last thought. Just how many jazz musicians, particularly you older guys like me, have never used a fakebook? ;-)

George Hess
ghess1000@...

Congressman John Hall, who stated to me that he would recuse himself from a vote involving copyright infringement because, as he said:

However, as a musician and songwriter, I would personally stand to

benefit from the passage of legislation that would protect these rights. Therefore I would have to recuse myself should this bill come up for a vote in the House.

apparently thinks otherwise when the copyright infringement in question is his own music.

For the full story:

Bobby said:

I have been thinking for a long time about Sybellius when it comes time
to upgrade (although I am finally getting better at Finale, the
Sybellius files I've seen look to be better engraving). I thought they
advertised that the program can convert Finale files. No?

John said:

.... Lately I'm going more with Finale/PrintMusic, in fact, I just upgraded for
$20 ... Sibelius has very little support for Mac ... I called them for a fix and
it it didn't solve my problems ... Yes, Sibelius is the industry standard, and
more powerful than Finale, but it knows it and cares little to commune with the
rest .

As someone who has been teaching both programs for years, I have to disagree with these statements. The engraving in Finale is far superior to Sibelius if you have a clue how to use it. The lines in Sibelius are much too thin, noteheads too small, etc. If you compare Sibelius and Finale output to real engraved music, you'll see Finale comes closer. Though neither is perfect. If you want great looking engraved notation try Lilypond, but be prepared to spend a lot of time learning it.

As to Sibelius being more powerful, it depends on how you define power. To me a powerful program is one that I can make do what I want. In that, Finale again is more flexible. Sibelius does more for you and as long as you like what it does, that's great. But that makes it easier, not more powerful. When I want to create a straight ahead jazz chart, I often use Sibelius because it is quick. But if I need to anything "weird" (as the Sibelius manual used to describe it), then Finale is the better choice.

I've been experimenting with MusicXML files in both programs. The results have been disappointing. Finale can't even import its own XML files perfectly and the results in Sibelius were almost useless. The one thing they do well is import the notes. Where MIDI files can't tell the difference between C# and Db or an eighth note and a staccato quarter note among other things, the XML files get 99% of that right.

George

George Hess
ghess1000@...

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, John Amato <jamato316@...> wrote:

"Kickin' It Home" ... a session w/horns ....

Nice. I always love your tone. Is that the Sadowsky? Were those
live/real horns or BIAB horns? They were effective regardless.

"Kickin' It Home" ... a session w/horns ....



John Amato
Isaiah 55:11

"Kickin' It Home" ... a session w/horns ....

'ItHome.mp3


John Amato
Isaiah 55:11

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Will" <will@...> wrote:

It was reported last week that Rod Stewart`s latest
album has gone platinum in sales.

How can this be if everybody is pirating?

RIAA certify sales:
500,000 units: Gold album
1,000,000 units: Platinum album
2,000,000 or more units: Multi-Platinum album
10,000,000 units: Diamond album

The overall numbers in each category are down.

The remastered Beatles collections also sold in millions,
as did "Let is be naked" and various other Beatles issues.

Avatar and other blockbusting movies have made absolute
fortunes - how can this be if everybody is pirating instead
of going to the movies? Even the very poorest of the James
Bond series attract massive paying audiences. I know dozens of kids
who have the entire Bond collection on DVD - they don`t want
the pirated versions.

The people who are pirating are simply collectors who have
little interest in the product other than outdoing their
mates.

The overall sales figures are down year after year.
CNN report on Forrester Research total revenue from U.S. music sales
and licensing in 1999 was $14.6 billion it plunged to $6.3 billion in
2009



Statistics independently compiled by stats companies such as Nielsen Soundscan, Forrester Research, IFPI, BPI show the same trend.











Mark

It was reported last week that Rod Stewart`s latest
album has gone platinum in sales.

How can this be if everybody is pirating?

The remastered Beatles collections also sold in millions,
as did "Let is be naked" and various other Beatles issues.

Avatar and other blockbusting movies have made absolute
fortunes - how can this be if everybody is pirating instead
of going to the movies? Even the very poorest of the James
Bond series attract massive paying audiences. I know dozens of kids
who have the entire Bond collection on DVD - they don`t want
the pirated versions.

The people who are pirating are simply collectors who have
little interest in the product other than outdoing their
mates.

Will