What makes you happy?

**Frownland** · 11-09-2016, 01:05 AM

People who work only to buy food are the last people that I'd say have a consumerist mindest. Consumerism is frivolity. Consumerism is when buying something becomes your meaning in life, not that buying anything destroys all meaning life once had.

Oriphiel · 11-09-2016, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy

But what I find more confusing is your description of artists who sell exclusively digital content. How does that exist? How does anyone control valued digital goods? It would require the suppression of their inherent and fundamental qualities of being infinitetly replicable and being distributed at zero-cost. I ask this as an honest question because it defies any reasonable understanding of digital goods.

First off, digital goods are not distributed at zero-cost. For starters, the content itself required time and money to make. Secondly, uploading that content to the internet requires an internet connection, as well as a website that you either pay to host yourself or pay to list things on (either directly or through ad revenue). Just because it is easier than ever to get your work out there, does not mean that the work itself magically appeared out of nowhere and took no effort to make or sustain, and that the artist spent no money trying to get their work noticed. While making a copy of your work is quick, easy and can even be self-automated, this isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. People are able to acquire content with the touch of a button, and can make content without the burden of taking up physical space, in a world that is already burdened with landfills filled with CDs and records. More people are able to access more content than ever before, and they are given the opportunity to pay a fair price for it without a corporate entity taking a massive cut. Sure, some services still screw their artists, but for every Itunes there's a Bandcamp.

The truth is, the digital age has made it easier than ever for artists to sell things directly to their fanbase, and while a middle ground of distribution does still largely exist, there is increasingly less need for a massive and expensive corporate middle ground. Poor kids no longer need to put themselves in debt by paying studios all they've got just to get access to decent equipment, no longer need to join a big label to be marketed outside of their local area, or have a company press records for them so that anyone can hear their work at all. They still can if they want, but the key is that they don't have to. The digital age is the age of the creator-consumer, a person who can create and consume massive quantities of content with minimal corporate intervention. People can get paid to do what the love, and pay others to do what they love. How fucking awesome is that?! This is the utopia you've been dreaming about your whole life, and instead of supporting it, you've been leeching off of it while shitting on it, very much like the corporate suits you claim to hate. You simply take what you want, and expect people to keep making it for you like good little drones.

Whether or not digital goods take up space is irrelevant, they still have a value. Their value is in the experience. You yourself gain enjoyment from digital goods. They entertain and inspire you. You protect them with massive servers, showing that you are afraid of losing them, of losing the time and effort that it took to acquire them. Yet, though you're willing to pay for an artisinal lamp that makes you happy, you're not wiling to pay for a digital song that makes you happy, just because it doesn't have a resell value?

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy

Does Apple still sell music? If so, how have they maintained that preposterous platform? It is absolutely impossible to capitalize on digital goods. This was effectively demonstrated with the complete failure of streaming services to generate a positive cashflow for over 90% of the artists whose content they streamed. This was further demonstrated by the end of the software industry. Adobe adapted to this realization by switching to subscription-based software which a small percentage of lesser-informed individuals still pay for on a monthly basis. (Much like we've seen with cable subscriptions.) It really makes no sense at all.

Wow, a big company got cocky and greedy and fucked up. That's never happened before. Like I said, for every Itunes, there's a Bandcamp, Spotify or a Pandora. Just because some big companies of yore are having trouble adapting doesn't mean that it's impossible for anyone to adapt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy

But do not misinterpret my intention. Artists deserve to be compensated for their works. They contribute a vital asset to the cultural economy. I don't know of any digital-only artists but you've expressed that they exist and they too would deserve compensation. As there is no way to control the distribution of digital goods, many have opted for the PWYW model which has worked well for many artists.

You're right. Artists deserve to be compensated for their work. Not the packaging of their work, but the work itself. Dude, you're on a website filled with artists who release music digitally. Yorkedaddy alone has released enough digital music to sink a digital ship. Yes, some ask for a set amount of money, others let the consumer decide what to pay, and others even give out their music for free. But to steal from all of them is to screw the ones that really could have used the humble amount they were asking for. They have bills to pay. Ideally maybe they shouldn't, maybe one day we can all live in a world where people no longer need the consensual hallucination of the inherently worthless rags called dollars, but right now they do. That's just the reality of the world we're living in at this moment. Even if you just give them a few bucks, money is money, and it adds up. If they make music that makes you happy, why not pay them for the experience? Just because something doesn't have a re-sell value doesn't mean that it wasn't worth supporting. For a guy who loves marxism, you sure have a capitalistic point of view.

I don't get you. You claim to love music, but in the end you'd rather pay insane amounts of money for inherently worthless pieces of plastic, rather than pay a humble amount to get the music itself without bells and whistles. You'd rather pay hundreds to a re-seller, fueling the capitalistic middle ground you claim to despise, rather than give just one dollar to someone who wants to inject their music directly into your mind? Just admit it, you love owning physical things, despise investing in something without a clear return, and believe that the world of digital goods is yours to exploit simply because it's easy to steal things without consequences. This is the capitalist mindset, the corporate ambition. Embrace it if you want, but don't pretend that you're some gallant knight of the people in the meantime.

Overcast · 11-09-2016, 04:57 AM

.

djchameleon · 11-09-2016, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overcast

Vodka, cats, rainstorms, night walking, music, bushcraft, taking a really long piss, anime and the apocalypse.

What is this?

Is it like Warcraft but with bushes?

The Batlord · 11-09-2016, 11:27 AM

Splitting some chick with a shag carpet down the middle?

innerspaceboy · 11-09-2016, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

Okay so I get all of that but two things.

Acquiring any good is still consumerism regardless of the condition that it is bought in.

Two, you didn't address the fact that you need to purchase things that are necessary to live such a groceries.

Our disconnect appears to be concerned with the accepted meaning of the word, 'consumerism'. A clarification of my interpretation of this term should resolve all questions.

The first sentence on Wikipedia's entry for consumerism is this:

Quote:

Consumerism as a social and economic order and ideology that encourages the acquisition of goods and services in ever-increasing amounts.

It then acknowledges that there are multiple (and even contradictory) meanings, but the one I so avidly despise is that primary sentence. It also notes:

Quote:

While the above definitions were being established, other people began using the term "consumerism" to mean "high levels of consumption". This definition gained popularity since the 1970s and began to be used in these ways:

"Consumerism" is the selfish and frivolous collecting of products, or economic materialism. In protest to this some people promote "anti-consumerism" and advocacy for simple living.

"Consumerism" is a force from the marketplace which destroys individuality and harms society. It is related to globalization and in protest to this some people promote the "anti-globalization movement".

So to answer your question, my distaste for consumerism does not contradict my need to purchase foodstuffs and shelter. It is the blind and endless consumption of unneeded, disposable new goods which repulses me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suzy Creamcheese

First off, digital goods are not distributed at zero-cost...

Thank you, Suzy for challenging me on this. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful response and will do my best to provide the answer it deserves.

I make no secret that my knowledge of economics, media markets, and political philosophy are elementary at best. But perhaps more importantly, I am practically oblivious to the culture of man outside my padded anechoic chamber. With my life choice of abstinence from traditional broadcast visual, audio, and print media, and with very minimal human contact, I honestly haven’t a clue what it’s like outside my terminal and listening room. That said, I work diligently to educate myself as to matters of cultural and socio-economic significance. I have no idea what contemporary music sounds like, much less how people engage that media, but I hold firmly to my position that I cannot fathom how digital marketplaces function logistically when they are by the very nature of their medium impossible to control commercially. That said, I am eager to develop a better understanding of how the world works, economically or otherwise, and I appreciate any input or corrections you and anyone else in the forum care to offer.

I agree completely that digital media and tools for creativity have democratized what was once a high-art reserved exclusively for a privileged few. Attending an orchestral performance was an exclusive experience for the wealthy, and each technological revolution has increased the reach of both music and the tools to create it. So if I must amend my phrasing, I’ll happily replace “zero distribution cost” with “exponentially reduced distribution expense.” And we agree on the critical factor that eliminating the necessity of monopolistic labels and other red tape of music-making truly empowers the artist more so than ever before.

And please do not misconstrue my statement that “all digital media is free” to mean “digital media has no value and does not deserve our support.” If I listened to any contemporary artists - a composer still alive and trying to earn a living from their creative work, I would absolutely, 100% support them. My anarchistic and kopimistic position on the matter of media economics is in no way a case-closed solution. Much work needs to be done to create an environment where artists can thrive and listeners can enjoy their work without the nonsense of intellectual property or a monstrous act like the DMCA.

Though I must contest your statement about Spotify and other “legitimate” streaming services, as there is no such thing. When last I checked in, only 0.3% of the artists featured on Spotify earn minimum wage or more from their streaming revenue. Frankly, I was shocked to learn that streaming services were still a thing, but you can’t ask people to make sense.

You expressed confusion that I’d rather “pay insane amounts of money for inherently worthless pieces of plastic, rather than pay a humble amount to get the music itself without bells and whistles.”

Listening to the music is in no way my goal when I purchase a rare or exclusive LP. (Though that should be evident at the outset given the almost laughable impracticability of the format.) I already have lossless vinyl rips of every title I purchase, often months before I invest in the physical item. Excepting the most extreme cases of rarity where no digital version is available from a topsite, I purchase the LP itself as an objet d’art. I’ll give them a spin out of romanticism now and again but really there is no need - the purchase is to claim a piece of cultural history in tribute to great artists come and gone.

And your next statement that I am somehow choosing to fuel a capitalist evil instead of funding the artists themselves is entirely a false dichotomy. The majority of the works I invest in are from deceased or retired artists and composers. Once again, the albums I download are not available from their composer at any price anywhere. The only way to acquire the physical good is to buy a used pressing directly from another collector. I fail to see how this is supporting a capitalist purgatory.

“Just admit it…” you say. So I will - I admit that I love music history and that that passion drives me to survey the entirety of musical heritage (via filesharing). I admit that I enjoy collecting rare specimen of musico-cultural significance, and while the objective function of these objects is secondary, it pleases me to construct my museum of critical works, in my own romantic hope of preserving that historical interactive experience for future listeners. I admit proudly that I believe in the mantra, “all information wants to be free” and that a society benefits more the greater their public domain.

Yes - capitalism exists and presents a terrible obstacle in the path of this utopian vision where artists can create freely and listeners can enjoy all they desire. I don’t claim to have the answer to this 200-year old problem. I’m going to keep educating myself on anarchism, kopimism, and their practical applications in the real world and hope to see a day when scarcity economies are vanquished and we can all hold hands and dance around a rainbow.

It’s going to take a lot of work.

But that’s what makes me happy.

Oriphiel · 11-09-2016, 07:02 PM

There are certain things we agree on, and other things that we disagree on, but in the end...

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy

If I listened to any contemporary artists - a composer still alive and trying to earn a living from their creative work, I would absolutely, 100% support them.

...is all I wanted to hear. Kudos for taking criticism in a calm stride. Though I'll never be quite as hardline as you when it comes to music copyrights (as while I'm no fan of the DMCA and rampant corporate violations of Fair Use, I still believe that people should always have the right to own and sell songs in at least some capacity) I have to admit that you are a true gentleman. Cheers.

innerspaceboy · 11-09-2016, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suzy Creamcheese

There are certain things we agree on, and other things that we disagree on, but in the end...

...is all I wanted to hear. Kudos for taking criticism in a calm stride. Though I'll never be quite as hardline as you when it comes to music copyrights (as while I'm no fan of the DMCA and rampant corporate violations of Fair Use, I still believe that people should always have the right to own and sell songs in at least some capacity) I have to admit that you are a true gentleman. Cheers.

It was indeed an enlightening dialog. You've given me some homework which I shall enjoy exploring in the weeks ahead. The greatest thing I can hope to achieve through participation in this forum is having my eyes opened to consider new ideas. This is why I come to MB.

I thank you.

Lucem Ferre · 11-10-2016, 04:35 AM

I got an idea that might shake your world, spaceboy.

What if, now bare with me on this one, what if instead of putting the cheese and the meat and stuff on top of the chips, we put the chips on top of those toppings when we make nachos so all we have to do is dip the nacho chips into the cheese and stuff rather than deal with the mess of eating the chips after they have been smothered in the toppings?

djchameleon · 11-10-2016, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy

So to answer your question, my distaste for consumerism does not contradict my need to purchase foodstuffs and shelter. It is the blind and endless consumption of unneeded, disposable new goods which repulses me.

Okay, yeah I came to realize after Frownland mentioned it at the top of this page that consumerism is more about purchasing new things in excess.

I thought it was more basic than that and just applied to all goods. Whatever makes you happy.

I just thought it was kind of strange because if you really think about it. The things that you buy second hand/used where new at one point in time. The previous owner/s had to have bought it new at one point in time. If they didn't purchase disposable new goods then you wouldn't be able to buy some of the things that you actually own.

11-09-2016, 01:05 AM	#41 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	People who work only to buy food are the last people that I'd say have a consumerist mindest. Consumerism is frivolity. Consumerism is when buying something becomes your meaning in life, not that buying anything destroys all meaning life once had. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

11-09-2016, 04:57 AM	#43 (permalink)
Overcast . Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: . Posts: 1,531	. Last edited by Overcast; 12-24-2018 at 04:38 AM.