Post Reply Media, Copyright, Ads, Restrictions.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 2/3/15
So.... yeah.

Feel free to discuss any or all of the above.

Now for some of my random thoughts on this:

We all like media, and we all assume that, yes, the artists should be paid for their works. How much may be debatable.

We also bemoan the loss of quality, yet we demand for ever increasing amounts to be created, and often complain that X wasn't like or as good as Y. There's only so much that can be produced.

TV is dying and we all point a finger to the companies broadcasting and say that they fill their time slots with way too many ads, (and honestly, I encourage the death of the advertising business, as ads have become ineffective at best, being lost in the shitstorm of advertising that we see each day (and now either tune out subconsciously, or consciously go out of our way to skip over, block, or otherwise avoid), or annoying and irritating at worse, leaving a negative impression of the business they're supposed to encourage or represent as people try like hell to avoid having to interact with them.

However, ads are often considered the "way" to give content for free or for a lesser charge. The less effective the ads are, the cheaper advertising on that service gets, and the more ads it publishes and sells in order to recoup costs, leading to a downward spiral.

TV is also dying due to copyrights, which over the years have been getting a little full of themselves with licensing fees and restrictions. As the internet has supposedly "freed" us from traditional media, we see more and more restrictive zoning blockades being set up to keep media within a particular area. Instead of, as physical media, allows, permanent ownership, licensing has become a game of allowing access to content for a matter of so many months, and then its gone. There's no guarantee what you want today, you'll be able to access tomorrow.

Furthermore, the prices for "premium" service for each media provider adds up quickly. to have access to to, say, CR, Amazon,Hulu, Funi, Showtime, and Netflix, individually cost you about $10 a pop, but together cost about the same as the average cable television bill, and then, they can only provide as good a quality of service as your internet provider allows (which can cost more than getting traditional cable alone for lesser quality. Granted, you do get more since you get the entirety of the web as well, but we're trying to keep this simple).

Finally, copyright holders and actual artists suffer a divide in and of themselves. Traditionally, at least for writers and musicians, the amount of money gained would have been less than 10% (and to be honest, more often less than even 5%) of the retail costs of the product.... If they retained the rights, rather than outright selling them to a production or publishing company. (creating a film or a comic are different. I know when I was younger I met a guy who did inking for spiderman, and he was payed decently a flat rate for his work inking per page. Technically, he wasn't working on an original work of his own, but that only further illustrates why this is all complicated)

Granted,a lot of the money these companies held went to producing the media and hiring the printers, editors, advertisers, etc. to make the final product and get it known.

Unfortunately, this model is now broken. With print on demand, streaming, downloadables, and self publishing at your fingertips, you'd think that creators would get more money, right?

Well, they do and they don't. Percentages are higher for going this route, but even still, it's a relatively small percentage compared to the amount of money that is being charged. Your downloaded iTunes album may cost $10 for you, but the artist, I wouldn't be surprised if they're making even a dollar out of that ten from your downloading. And why aren't they? Where is the hidden cost in creating one master copy of the digital information, and then sending that information out to anyone that downloads? is it the bandwidth? the storage? (please. Google, MS, and others are able to give you GIGS of storage for free and we're talking files that are less than 10 MB. Dropbox offers a terabyte of storage for $10 a month, and finding a standard laptop with a terabyte of storage doesn't cost an arm and a leg either...) Self publishing on Amazon may be the best deal, and with them it's about 50% if I recall correctly for self publishing your book/story/literature. But that's only literary works. The same old deal probably stands for going through the traditional methods...

It's got to be the middlemen and the licensees....

None of this is a criticism of CR, Funi or the others. They work through the system to provide us with content. They play it legal and do the best they can... This instead is a criticism of the system as a whole and the bullshit ways that people try to trick you into paying more for less service and otherwise capitalize on what should, theoretically, be a more even and easier trade: My money for an artist's work.
Posted 1/29/15
I think advertising is still pretty important, it gets your work out to more people. They'll check your work, and if they like it, they'll spread word of mouth to friends etc.

I don't think it's iTunes that's getting most of the profits, most of the profits go to the record label, so that's why if an artist wants more money, they'll have to start up their own record label. But that means doing the promotion and marketing yourself.
Having a major record company helps take away the stress in doing promotion and reduce risks of no profits as the label that is the one funding the project.

And if you have like 10 songwriters on your songs, of course you will get less profit as an artist...
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 1/29/15
Adblocker master race!

The only site I've white listed in CR, but I got premium so I don't see ads.
You must be logged in to post.