Fuck Kim Dotcom. He's a scumbag piece of shit who deserves to rot in prison. He plots and schemes way to put hundreds of millions of dollars into his pocket off of the works of others. Anyone who supports him should be ashamed of themselves.
It's fundamentally different. There's a contractual relationship between an artist and a label. The label may be taking advantage of the artist, but that's what the artist agreed to (albeit unwittingly, I'm sure).
The recording industry at least doesn't run an underground BBS and sells out its users to law enforcement to save itself after being raided. Kimble has always been a self-centred scumbag. I really don't understand why anybody ever trust him again with anything.
You can judge someone both on their merits and vices. Both Mega and this Baboom are pretty awesome and technically amazing. I'm listening to his album right now, and it's actually really catchy and enjoyable. The man has many talents, and he is using them for good at the moment. I'd say the U.S. government is way worse than someone who is 'self-centered.' The U.S. is a war machine, Dotcom is conceited. Now who should we be concerned about, heh.
I mentioned the US because the charges on him are from the US government, lobbied by corporate interests.
Self-centered does not imply killing in any way, shape, or form. If you use the word akin, try not to be hyperbolic, it makes any intelligent reader immediately discard any validity you would have summoned.
Not really a fan of the vitriol in the grandparent comment, but yes, the record industry is different in that some of the profits accrue to the artists. Maybe not enough, but that's different than giving them nothing at all.
From what Courtney Love said, that's not really true. Well selling records can actually put the artist in debt. The best venue for artist to earn money are tours and merchandise.
I don't doubt it's a messed up industry in many ways, but even "messed up" beats "rip off 100% and give nothing back" every time.
For me as a fan of several groups, the key thing, economically speaking, is that the group is able to work on their music full time, thus maximizing their creative output and therefore, as someone who enjoys what they do, the benefits to me.
It's messed up, but the problem is Kit Dotcom steals, but at least he doesn't own any rights to music and you don't own him money once the dust settles. I could be wrong, but he is having making a Spotify clone, no?
If he is making a recording label, I'd avoid him more than the plague.
"... selling records can actually put the artist in debt."
Yes, of course. It's no different than startups - if you take on $500,000 debt to start your business (a.k.a. make an album, promote the album), you will be in debt until you sell enough product to pay off said debt.
The best venue for artist to earn money are tours and merchandise.
A good new year's resolution for us all is to "Stop talking about stuff you don't know about as though you have experience with it."
Hey another good new year's resolution is to "Don't talking condescending unless you have something valuable to contribute". I.e. give me data showing I'm wrong.
I'm not saying they make lots of lots of money of merchandising and tours, but from what I've gathered they make more of money on those, unless the studio contract takes part of that as well. Basically they earn more money on a merchandise they are on, or a product line they sell than on records.
Your metaphor is more like starting a startup to get famous enough to start another startup to pay the debts of the previous one.
The best ways for artists to earn money are not tours and merchandise. I don't know why that assertion keeps getting passed around as fact. No one ever seems to post data supporting it. For your basic indie musician tour (plus merchandise), you're doing really well if you are making enough money to pay for the food and lodging costs of the tour.
I missed that the parent thread was limited to RIAA signed artists, and reacted to the blanket statement of the parent implying it was a truth for all artists (including unsigned and indie).
Yes, it is true that big-label acts made most of their money from touring and merchandise. My point is that that fact does not translate to smaller-time indie artists.
A lot of people tend to improperly point to the RIAA practices (of capturing most of the licensing/royalty pie), and use it to make the case that indie musicians should also not expect any revenue from their product and instead focus on touring and merchandise. It's a self-serving argument from those that are in favor of "free" streaming music. In other words, there's a difference between claiming that RIAA has historically captured most of that pie, and claiming that the pie doesn't exist.
I think the point of contention is this: if the artist isn't getting paid by the record company for music sales, is ripping it off from them even wrong?
Yes, voluntarily. People would kill to get these ostensibly terrible recording ontracts. Because, statistically speaking, the alternatives for artists are to 1) starve to make their music or 2) get another job. Playing live does not make real money to any but the small fraction who are already famous, and guess how they got there in the first place!
You are totally right and I couldn't agree more with you. The thing is that the record companies have created an environment where almost the only way to make a living is signing "voluntarily" with them.
Nowadays a musician is not so different from a software developer. They can work solo or in groups, they can distribute their songs freely or decide to charge for them. But the software developing world and the music world are two completely different worlds when you look at the business model. So yeah, you can voluntarily sell your software to a giant like Google or Microsoft, but I'm not sure that signing for Virgin or Warner is such a voluntary act.
Generally speaking, people should be put in prison only if the prosecution can legally prove they did something illegal. "I totally know he is a scumbag" cause "some unrelated stuff that was totally shade" is not considered proof.
Shady acts on the side of FBI, police and other government agencies are way more dangerous for democracy and rule of law then whatever Kim Dotcom did.
The same goes for criminalization of copyright law, whether by precedent or brought law changes.
"Fuck Kim Dotcom. He's a scumbag piece of shit who deserves to rot in prison. He plots and schemes way to put hundreds of millions of dollars into his pocket off of the works of others. Anyone who supports him should be ashamed of themselves."
Fuck YOU and current copyright. By running megaupload/mega Kim Dotcom did nothing wrong. He created service for sharing information, that is a good thing. The artificial limitations copyright imposes on usage of our technologies is retarded.
Really? Perhaps you work for the corrupt dinosaurs at the MAFIAA or those in the UK/US government? Or perhaps you were easily fooled by the lies fed to you by mainstream media?
Either way, people on HN should remember that Kim Dotcom is one of the few successful .com businessmen to fight against Hollywood & the NSA in the name of internet freedom and privacy rights. Whatever you think of him, remember that the enemy of your enemy is always your friend.
> He plots and schemes way to put hundreds of millions of dollars into his pocket off of the works of others.
Ok, if you have a problem with share-cropping then you should start with Zuckerburg and all the other social networks, not to mention Ariana Huffington who conned bloggers and writers to work for free...
If it makes you feel better I only got 12 imaginary internet points. I've also been quite consistent in my rallying against Dotcom. It's taking time but most people are coming around to realizing that Dotcom is a sleazy scumbag not worth of praise or support.
If this is how you feel about the world, how do you live? Do you simply just not use services you feel have been corrupt? If that's the case the only place you should really be located is the woods without internet.
