

Buy This Movie Or Legally Download It For Free: Your Call - tilt
http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/01/buy-presspauseplay-or-legally-download-it-for-free-your-call/

======
sp332
Creativity is universal. Just because you're making something "mediocre", or
the same thing as everyone else, doesn't mean that it's not worth making.

Maybe I would agree that mediocre stuff is getting too much coverage. If we
could limit the stuff we make to just friends and family, instead of making it
public to everyone, then we could all make mediocre stuff without flooding
strangers with mediocre crap :)

ETA:

I think the tradeoffs are worth it though. It's much easier to identify talent
now that the barriers to entry are so low. You don't have to judge them by
some proxy like whether they have decent equipment, or if they're friends with
someone famous.

Example: Hannah Hart made a stupid drunk video
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq7G-Q9ZwC0> but people realized that she was
pretty funny and had good editing skills. So they encouraged her to make more
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLYxeJjxc8s> and she got the attention of
internet celebrities <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLsTc_kETY> and she got
to do a music video with a musician she likes
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIvOqHfia2s> and that wouldn't have happened
if that first stupid drunk video wasn't available to the entire internet.

------
blendergasket
I really wish people who did this would put donate buttons on their sites. I
would rather all (or most when taking the processing fees into account) of the
money would go to them and not Apple or Amazon.

~~~
Joakal
If you put a donation button but not a charity, american, etc, Google Checkout
will freeze your account.

[http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer...](http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer=72721)

Or they could try PayPal instead...

~~~
2q3241
So non american individuals cannot take any form of donations? That's strange.

------
aufreak3
Saw this film in singapore recently. I don't think it'll tell you anything you
don't already know. If it had come out like even 10 years ago, then you
might've called it prescient or atleast credit it with identifying a trend.
Not today though. Waste neither bandwidth nor money on it. (just my opinion)

------
nextparadigms
Creativity has increased because of the Internet. There's nothing to prove
that "creativity will be destroyed". If anything we'll get more original and
innovative ideas, instead of the boxed ones that are made from a template to
make $300 million.

------
paul9290
This interview with prior RIAA head, Hilary Rosen is very insightful.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VBrDFxA9Q&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VBrDFxA9Q&feature=player_embedded)

As she notes the RIAA wasn't the only bad guy in bringing Napster down.
Napster's VCs wanted too much money from an industry at the time that couldn't
match CD sales. It's a business and thus the RIAA focused on the best money
channel!

A lot of readers here probably hated and or still hate the RIAA because they
are viewed as laggards(even though those same ppl can't get enough of their
content). This interview shows some in the music industry were laggards, some
were not, while showing it wasn't just the industry who killed Napster, but
the greed of Napster's VCs too.

Changing a 100 year old business model won't happen overnight and even after
12 years it is still taking shape.

My guess is the industry will see crazy Netflix like growth once Spotify,
Pandora and other subscription services are built into cars; users use voice
recognition to start playlists or songs. How many subscribed to satellite
radio or still do?

Spotify on every IP device, even in my car is worth paying $10 a month for!

~~~
r0s
> even though those same ppl can't get enough of their content

The RIAA produces zero content, they buy and sell content as a commodity. They
add nothing to the industry of music creation but parasitic impediment.

~~~
paul9290
Well if you feel that way do not consume any of their content. Let them die!

Though say, you enjoy this new artist who is an awesome talent and who wants
to make a living making music; have their music heard all over the world by
millions. The best way to do this now is still the music industry.

The industry acts a filter, a promoter and investor of talent (their the
YCombinator for musicians). It's been 12 years since Napster and the industry
is still successfully doing this, yet making less money as of now.

Subjectively these music subscription services are the key to growing their
revenue beyond present day. I mean why would the guy behind Napster and
Facebook (Sean Parker) be an investor and promoter of Spotify if he didn't
feel this way?

Further, I think just like Netflix once Spotify is built in to every IP device
including cars, the industry will be financially stronger then ever.

~~~
r0s
> The industry acts a filter, a promoter and investor of talent (their the
> YCombinator for musicians).

The music 'industry' is huge and complex. They're like Righthaven, Microsoft,
Linux, the startup scene, and all other players on every side of
helping/exploiting artists.

The RIAA has nothing to do with small record labels like the one I manage,
struggling to promote great but fame-less musicians. I suppose they do effect
us in that they pose an omnipresent threat of arbitrary litigation at any
moment.

What's the difference between Sony, some small tour booking company, and a
music venue? I guess from the outside it all looks the same.

~~~
paul9290
The industry is just like Napster's VCs who most of us entrepreneurs strive to
get our work funded and backed by.

For me Rosen's interview highlights this fact.

Every budding musician and entrepreneur needs a backer with financial muscle,
connections and past experience to be a success.

As for small labels like your own... once you hit the big time with an artist
you are bound to make deals with the big guys to increase sales/profit. I mean
are you not in it to make as much money as possible?

As for your artists' if they are great then their talent will spread online
(Youtube and Facebook). Once you have that artist I hope you would be doing
everything for them to maximize profits and exposure.

~~~
jamesbritt
_I mean are you not in it to make as much money as possible?_

As possible while not being a scumbag or making pacts with the devil. I'm not
alone, either.

We want to do well, ideally make a living, hopefully live large. But that
doesn't mean doing everything and anything, morals be damned.

~~~
paul9290
Well i agree with you there but if you look at the most successful people from
Edison to the current crop of luminaries you will see they all were/are
ruthless!

Funny that the music industry gets such a bad wrap, yet we never saw VH1
behind the music like programs about the TV and film industries.

------
drcube
Sites like Hacker News comb the net and bring interesting web sites and
articles to my attention, in a world where everyone can be a writer. And in a
world where everyone can be an artist, musician or movie maker, there will be
ways to filter out the good stuff from the bad. "Getting lost in a sea of
mediocrity" is entirely avoidable.

~~~
earbitscom
That's true in theory but the number of people like PG who can setup such a
valuable resource and not care about whether it costs them money are few. Most
people who create outlets for art online or elsewhere have bills to pay and
money becomes a factor. It is a very risky and low-profit business bringing
obscure art to the masses. What is more likely is what happened with Myspace -
it was a new, innovative way for any musician to create a presence for
themselves online, where millions of people were also spending time exploring.
But they chose not to limit it to only high quality artists and eventually the
people who spent more time "friending" others than they did actually making a
quality product achieved more through the platform. Creating something that
works differently when this is the natural flow of such platforms is very
challenging.

------
powertower
<http://www.youtube.com/user/PressPausePlay>

Their channel has a bunch of interviews that I'm assuming is the contents of
the movie.

~~~
joelhaus
These are the only ones I've listened to so far, but they were both good...

Larry Lessig: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRABcFKOXtU>

Kirby Dick: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eOm8ggE6_8>

------
bennesvig
Watched it last week. It's really good, especially Seth Godin's story of
publishing the Ideavirus.

------
Tycho
Maybe I see things in simple terms. But I think of artists as people who use
their creative talent to entertain others (by
exciting/relaxing/engaging/uplifting/etc them) in exchange for payment. And I
see all these non-artists 'excited' about the 'potential' to 'express' and
'communicate ideas to the whole world' without the 'shackles' of commercial
enterprise as basically being people, who care more about the spare change in
their pocket than they do about artists, masquerading as new millennium
hippies.

~~~
blhack
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that artists [or people]
creating art for non-commercial purposes aren't really artists?

That seems a little silly to me

~~~
Tycho
No, but let's just say that it's like anything else, eg. being a programmer.
Doing art for a living isn't some transcendent activity compared to making
your living doing any other sort of job. If you're good, people will pay you;
if you do it for free, people will take it. If you're bad, people wont pay you
any attention (or money).

~~~
blhack
<sarcasm> Nobody ever created anything good without being paid for it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux>

</sarcasm>

~~~
Tycho
That was nowhere in my statement.

