How to film an award winning movie with no money
- New article on the Weblog!
How to film an award winning movie with no money
- As Hollywood writers strike for a piece of digital profits, a similar battle
is brewing over royalties paid to songwriters and music publishers.
- On Feb 4, 2008 1:21 PM, Manuel Marino <manuelmarino@...> wrote:
>I'm all for screenwriters and songwriters getting paid. As the
> As Hollywood writers strike for a piece of digital profits, a similar battle
> is brewing over royalties paid to songwriters and music publishers.
writer's strike grinds on, however, I'm realizing the enormous backlog
of content available on TV. I surf higher up the channels than I used
to, seeing what more stations have to offer. I'm watching old
episodes of The Twilight Zone. I'm watching lots of Turner Classic
Films. I've always been a documentary junkie, they're seemingly
unaffected by the strike, and that's the only reason I'd consider
subscribing to cable anyways. I acquire complete collections of Star
Trek: The Original Series and The Muppet Show on DVD and watch the
heck out of 'em. The only reason I watch TV as much as I do is
because it's available where I'm currently living. In my previous
apartment I was the only one living there. I deliberately chose to
never set up TV channels, not even a broadcast aerial, so that I
wouldn't get sucked into a bad habit. I used my TV for DVDs only.
And if I didn't even have a TV, know what I'd do? I'd either play
games on my computer, or go read books.
I probably haven't bought any music in 5 years. I don't listen to
music. My venerable CD collection is gathering dust in storage. Some
accident of my childhood made me a musical non-consumer. Not enough
of a social experience for me, I think. The mainstream told me I
wasn't cool enough. As an adult I rebelled by listening to Classical
and ethno-musicological stuff. In short, people who can really play
their instruments. So I really don't care what happens to the music
industry. It does nothing whatsoever for me. I don't own an iPod,
the MP3 generation is completely lost on me.
I'm far more likely to someday create music than consume music. In
the past I've played in a Gamelan ensemble, and I also tried to teach
myself acoustic guitar. I didn't have the finger strength for it, so
I didn't get very good. Someday I may combine my computer skills with
music and do orchestral stuff. That day could happen sooner rather
Meanwhile, I'm painting again. Painting has been in remission for a
number of years. Most of my energy got dumped into computers instead.
Now I'm trying to find a balance. Computers have the downside that
they don't provide anything tangible. Music has always been a lower
priority to me than painting. My feeling is, I'm not going to bother
with music if I can't even manage to get some painting done.
My point is, there are so many things to consume, and so many things
to produce, am I really going to miss it if a bunch of artists fold up
shop and disappear? I'd like to see them get what they can negotiate.
But it doesn't affect me at all. I pay for my creative habits with
tedious but high dollar computer work. Maybe I'll sell paintings
someday, maybe I won't. I'm a would-be indie game developer. I
already stand outside the mainstream game industry, with its game
publishers taking advantage of everyone, and I want nothing from them.
My technological R&D is focused on empowering myself so that I don't
need a team of programmers, a pile of money, or publishers to produce
my own games.
Maybe non-specialization is the way of the future. Maybe artists are
going to have to handle their own businesses end-to-end. If you
specialize and leave other people in charge of marketing and
distribution, seems like all you get is ripped off.
Brandon Van Every
- Personally, I think the musicians who make the music should be paid a hell of a lot more than what they're being paid now. This very situation is one of the many reasons why I have trouble feeling sympathy for the RIAA and MPAA. A few things I'd like to point out:
"Sales of physical CDs have declined precipitously, and the industry has laid off thousands of employees," according to a document circulated by the RIAA. "All of this has led to a mechanical royalty rate structure that is out of whack with historical rates in the United States and current rates around the world."
Perhaps this could be the reason they keep posting increasingly larger profit margins while claiming that they're losing money? I highly doubt it. Nearly every reason for publishing a document such as that would be a non-sequitir. The recording industry makes more than enough money to pay the artists they endorse at a reasonable level. Arguments that go against this, saying that the recording industry is losing profits and is struggling fails basic math before it even starts. The recording industry is nothing more than a glorified middleman.
Songwriters and publishers could be cut out of these new revenue streams, which is one reason the first witness called in the hearings -- Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America -- said, "Our opponents have to recognize that this rate-setting is not a matter of gamesmanship for songwriters, but rather one of survival."
Quality could be exactly what the music industry, which is so eager to pin its declining fortunes on technological developments, needs more than anything else right now. If Israelite is correct and the quality of music depends on keeping songwriters happy, music fans should hope the Copyright Royalty Board settles on a rate that keeps them solvent.
"It all starts with the content," NPD's Cruspin said. "(Music) is not a commodity. We're not talking about laundry detergent here."
Case in point. The perception of employment is one of give and take, obviously. Despite what corporations that complain about profits, unions, and prices think, it's actually a 3 way street. The first, is the quality of the product worth buying? The second, if it is worth buying, will it be relatively successful at a commercial level? The final, and obviously most overlooked (otherwise, this sort of situation wouldn't have cropped up in the first place) is, are the conditions reasonable for the person that supplies or maintains the product (in this case, the artist).
Obvious attempts to profiteer as the record companies have does not fulfill the needs of the people who provide it with content to work with. Thus, the recording industry is forced to reap what it has sown. Amusingly, it's not satisfied with the bed it has made.
- Taken from the blog of an artist I admire, found at http://rhjunior.livejournal.com/407501.htmlWhen one regards the RIAA, one is reminded of the old Japanese story of a skinflint landlord who rented out a small room above his fish shop to a poor student. One day the young man had a guest, who asked him how he could bear to be so poor and to live on nothing but plain rice day after day. "Ah, but the aroma of the cooking fish below wafts up into my room," the young man explained, "and the smell adds flavor to my rice as I eat it."
The greedy old man heard this and, enraged, had the boy seized and dragged before the court--- for theft.
The judge heard both the old man's fiery invective and longwinded legal arguments, and the student's fumbling pleas for mercy and reason. When they were done, he pondered for a long time-- and then issued his decision in favor of the old man; the student must pay for what he had received.
The greedy old fishmonger was delighted, but the student was of course devastated. "How can I possibly pay the fine?" he wailed.
"Do you have any money on you?" The judge asked. "Yes, three or four coins," the young man admitted.
The judge had the young man give him his purse. He opened the purse; indeed there were four or so coins in the bag. The judge poured the coins back and forth between his hands, letting them jingle loudly in the silent courtroom. He nodded in satisfaction, then put the coins back in the purse-- and gave it back to the student. "The debt is paid," he announced.
The old fishmonger objected. "But no money has exchanged hands!"
"Did you see the coins? Did you hear them jingle in my hand?" The judge demanded. The old man nodded an affirmative. "Then you have been paid accordingly. As you would charge a man for the smell of cooking fish,so you have been paid with the sound of money."
If you will look closely, you will note that many wind chimes from the orient have coins in them....
In the spirit of that ancient and wise judge and his insightful legal decision, I would like a take a moment and render to the RIAA--- that den of lawyers and other spineless parasites, that parliament of whores; that institution of legal chicanery which, in a day where copies of any piece of musical recording replicate across the airwaves and cyberspace like bacteria in a petri dish , wishes to claim sole ownership of the sound of music, anywhere, ever, and charge anyone who so much as has a song stuck in his head for illicit ownership of "their property"--- their rightful payment.(imagine a photograph of a pile of money here, since I can't post pictures)Don't spend it all in one place, fellas...JoAnn