My podcast today is based upon an article I found by Deborah Gillis called "More Women in the Workplace is Good for Business".
The reason I chose this article was because I felt she made some really good points on how women in the workplace is currently viewed. She backed up her arguments with statistics and gave many examples.
I really felt this was a very well written article that is beneficial to read and I knew this was the article I wanted to discuss.
Thursday 27 June 2013
Monday 24 June 2013
Direct Connection
Personally I have never heard an artist say that their purpose is to
make money. They always refer to themselves as an “artist”. Obviously there will always be those who’s
primary goal is to seek financial reward but most artists will tell you that
this is secondary to their need for artist expression. Most start out to simply
entertain or communicate a message. For every music superstar there are
probably a thousand other musicians and singers who are happy if they can make
enough to pay their rent. One of you mentioned that if people aren’t paying for
the music that artist will lose their motivation to create. If this were true,
don’t you think we would have seen this already? Anyone who has been successful
in the music industry has started by making nothing for their craft. In
addition they never had any guarantee that they would ever make anything; they
simply wanted to create or play music. Artists should be making music because
they are passionate about it and want to entertain or communicate a message.
Would you want to listen to someone who just threw something together hoping to
make a profit instead of caring how it sounds? I think they call that “techno”
and it is little more than computer generated sound overlaying a monotonous
beat.
Artists nowadays have to realize that the internet is the strongest
and quickest way to reach their intended audience. The advent of the internet
has virtually removed all barriers that used to exist for a new artist to reach
an audience. From the sounds of it you seem to believe that the balance will be
realized through direct distribution. I also believe this to be mostly true and
that it might be the only way to make everyone happier (for the most part).
It was mentioned that the distributors are protectors of artist
rights. But are they really protecting the artist, or just themselves; their
right to turn a profit? I feel that, if anything, they are thinking about how much
money they stand to lose. The fact is that the artist can reach their audience
without them and they can do it faster. The faster they reach an audience the
faster it grows. This will mean the tours, concerts, and many other things the
artist will be a part of, will have that much more of an audience. If fans are
required to purchase a CD before they can actually listen to the songs, it
would probably take longer to build a following. Potential fans may never be
reached.
Rebuilding consumer appreciation
probably would help the artist to get more people to purchase their music,
you’re right. If this is the case, what should artists do? Implement more meet
& greets, more contests, tours, and specials. Would any of these work? If
there is a motive created for the consumer to buy the product, then sales would
increase. The artist is the one who would have the most impact on creating
motive, so if they really want consumers to pay then they need to find ways to
reach out.
The buyer wants to know their
money is going to the right place and that they are appreciated for their
purchase. If the artist doesn’t recognize the people actually buying the music,
then why bother paying. The other thing that needs to be recognized is that
there is very little enforcement of existing piracy laws. The benefits of
piracy quite simply outweigh the consequences. As a result, people will
continue to download “illegally”. The answer won’t be found in more
unenforceable copyright laws. The answer can only be found in a strong and more
direct connection between the artist and their fans.
Thursday 20 June 2013
Lawful or Unlawful?
Piracy is the unauthorized reproduction,
distribution, and selling of something that has copyrights attached. This occurs
increasingly more frequently with music, movies, and TV shows as technology
makes these artist creations more general accessible. This also creates a
problem for distributors; the middle man. The dramatic increase in direct
downloads have in effect out the middle man and along with them their profits. With
respect to piracy, it is the creator and/or distributor that are being victimized.
In response they push for increased or new copyright protection. However,
technology continues to evolve and along with it new means of circumventing
copyright protections. It is becoming more difficult to strike an appropriate
balance between the consumer and the distributor. Essentially the consumer is
trying to minimize or even eliminate cost while the distributors are trying to
maximize profit. Basically, distribution is “to supply revenues to
administrative organizations and intermediaries with little or no creative
function”.[1]
This in itself is nothing new to free markets. However, with most commodities
theft of the product is easier to define and just as easy to detect. How can an
effective and fair balance be found or will one of the players have to
compromise?
The fact that consumers don’t pay
for the music they download, doesn’t mean that they are trying to steal from
the artist. It just means that they don’t feel the need to pay the distributor.
There are times when the consumer will pay for a creation regardless of price, because
they are supporting a friend or a local artist. However, most of the time
consumers make every effort to avoid paying for a variety of reasons. These
include; they’ve paid too much in the past, it is overpriced, the artist is
rich, or they don’t know where their money is actually going. It is like a
charity in that sense. Someone might not donate because they have heard the
money doesn’t actually go towards the charity. Another argument is that free
downloads are free promotion for that distributor. Who would want to turn down
free promotion? Nowadays distribution is driven by
“word-of-mouth discussions, friend-to-friend sharing, and convenience in
accessing [the] music”.[2]
“If
music is free, no one will pay for it. If no one pays, artists and producers
will stop creating music,”[3]
which will lead to many distributors going out of business. In my opinion, this
is primary reason for copyrights laws. If there is no profit only the consumer
wins. The distributor is out of business and the creator has no motivation
beyond artistic expression. The world is driven by market demand, so why does
it seem different in this case? Because it would be FREE! The demand is for
free music, even though this might not directly benefit the artist involved. That
being said, the artist that creates something that is truly in demand will have
other very lucrative ways of generating income such as concerts, tours, meet
and greets, autographs, commercials and endorsements. Really when it comes down
to it “music lovers end up buying music”.[4]
According
to studies it would take “5,000 downloads to displace one sale”[5],
which is using their most pessimistic view. So I don’t understand why there is
such emphasis on getting people to pay $3+ for a song. Should we really be paying
for each song? When we really want to support the artist we will. I don’t
believe we should be forced into it; it should be voluntary. The impact on the
artist can be mitigated and as for the distributor, perhaps they no longer have
a meaningful role to play in the world of artist creations. In the end, maybe
the solution is to cut out the middle man (the distributor) and have the artist
post their songs and books. They can give them away or charge whatever they
want. Ultimately, their resulting popularity will determine things like income
and fame. “In situations where the connection between artists and fans is
viewed as more direct, people will buy.”6 The rest still have the best medium ever
created for artist expression on a global stage.
Friday 14 June 2013
Glass Ceiling & A Balance
This video talks briefly about the glass ceiling and
trying to find equality between men and women in the workplace.
Is there a balance? Will it ever be completely fair? Will everyone
feel equal one day? I used You Tube video manager to create my video.
I was able to edit the timing of clips, pictures, voice overs and
add in some transitions to make it flow. When I started using this
tool I found it helpful and easy and would highly recommend it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vuYqZVIqJ0&hd=1
Thanks for watching!
Monday 10 June 2013
Originality in the Past
How
many people do you think would still visit You Tube if there was a fee per view
or a fee to become a member? Would you continue to visit the site or would you
just visit less often? I know I wouldn’t pay. Unfortunately, the fact that
there is already a mechanism in place to pay for postings that generate a
certain number of views is an indication that we are heading in that direction.
YouTube, once a central source for all types of creative, entertaining,
educational and information works, will gradually become a clearing house for
cheap attention grabbing sound bite videos created for the sole purpose of
generating hits.
You
are right in saying that copyright issues are bigger in the new media age. This
I believe is due to the fact that it is now so much easier to edit work than to
create it. There is a lot more effort put in when something is original, but
with the technology these days, it is really easy to take a video, edit a few
things and post for yourself. An issue that also comes up is work being created
freely, and then someone else takes it and tries to gain a profit. This is the
main cause for copyrights; protection of the original artist. The person that
creates something should also have the right to profit from it and to determine
who else, if anyone can also profit from it. If you created something for which
there was a huge demand, would you be okay with someone else profiting from it
instead of you? Of course not!
I
would personally like to see You Tube maintain its original purpose. Unfortunately,
the more it tends toward being a commodity itself, the more it needs postings
that will generate profit. I personally feel that when posting on You Tube or
any free site, the work should be based upon wanting to voice an opinion or
helping to inform others. Unfortunately, more and more we are seeing postings
created specifically for entertainment; a quick trill. I feel there are already
enough venues for entertainment. Let’s try and keep You Tube unique in the
world of education and information. It has been my experience that life’s
everyday trials, tribulations and happenings are the purest form of
entertainment and often the funniest.
Is
it fair for our viewing to be restricted? Is it fair that we should pay for
something that was once free? Take Justin Bieber for example. He was just a
regular kid on You Tube posting videos of him singing. One day a celebrity came
across his video and thought he was talented…now he is a celebrity. Now that he
is a celebrity we need to pay for his music, concerts, videos, and even to just
see him. Is it right that just because he now makes millions off his music and
people think he is famous, that we should be paying to hear him? We used to be
able to hear him sing the same way on You Tube, so what makes him more
privileged than other You Tube posters? I guess the answer is, demand. Once his
work became popular and people were willing to pay to see him, he had a right
to profit from that; but it was his right; not the owners of You Tube. As I
said before, it is the creator that should profit; not those who stand on their
shoulders.
Overall, I
feel that copyrights are a good thing. Might not sound like it from what I have
talked about. But I believe that people should get the credit for what they had
come up with originally. No one should be able to take credit for someone
else’s work. This has always been the case and modern technology doesn’t change
it. If I’m going to buy a Rembrandt I want the original; not a knock-off.
Thursday 6 June 2013
Would you pay for You Tube?
When
does creative work become a commodity and who decides when, what and how much
you pay for something? There are countless forums available on the internet
wherein producers and potential consumers can interact. Should the creative
works found on these sits be available to everyone or only those willing to
pay? YouTube is an example of one of these forums and interestingly has been
used by many artists to achieve the very level of success that allowed them to
start charging to view their work. When trying to avoid plagiarism and
infringement copyright policies new creators always reference where they get
their material. This sometimes allows them to create and distribute their own
work by building on someone else’s. This happens a lot with music videos and
video trailers. The purpose behind these editing’s can range “from a cheap gag
to biting political satire.”[1]
Nowadays
everything represented in every form of media can be accessed and edited. This
entire media is “decontextualized and recontextualized by users for the purpose
of attraction.”[2]
This happens frequently on a site called YouTube which acts as a free forum for
people to create and post their own videos, or even edit and repost someone
else’s. In 2006 the number of new videos
posted every 24 hours was 65,000. Seven years later this number has increased
dramatically. Postings on YouTube have contributed to increasingly more
restrictive copyright laws as people continue to pass off the work of others as
their own.
Interestingly
there have been celebrities who launched their careers on YouTube. Initially
they were happy just to have their work viewed but once popular they would only
allow those who could pay to view their work.. At what point is it acceptable
for the creator to demand payment? Ultimately every artist should be
compensated for their work. How much depends on demand. The question is, how
can we differentiate between what should be freely available and what should be
paid for; when does an artist’s work become a commodity?
“Since
the companies which create social media platforms make money from having as
many users as possible visit them…they have direct interest in having users
pour as much of their lives into these platforms as possible.”[3]
Recently this happened with You Tube; leading videos with ads. Once they
recognized the extent to which their site was being used they structured it so
as to maximize profitability. The use of these ads had begun the transition of
YouTube material from cultural commons to cultural commerce. It is likely
inevitable that one day there will be account charges, or some charge to
viewing the videos for more than 30 seconds. YouTube will no longer be a free
site, it will be a business.
Ultimately, all artistic works, regardless of
the motivation for their creation, have the potential to become a commodity. “…every
track out of a million or so available through iTunes sold at least once a
quarter. In other words, every track no matter how obscure found at least one
listener”[4].
Whether or not a creation becomes a commodity depends almost entirely on the
extent of demand for the particular creation. The only way to work towards a
cultural commons for material on the internet is to ensure that any works
reused for the purpose of creating a profit include payment to the original
artist or producer. Continued attempts to reap profits without recognizing the
rights of the producer will only lead to more restrictive copyright laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)