Well, at Google people get legal advice from in house lawyers via Gmail. Are they not sharing that with at least some of the Gmail team (who could read the email)?
Gmail users (correctly and reasonably) do not expect the "gmail team" to read their emails, except using glass-breaking incident response privileges that leave audit trails and trigger review. Users expect that email is private. Anyway, both Google's privacy policy and American jurisprudence segregate things like emails, voice calls, and video calls into a separate "communications" category, while Google's privacy policy treats Google Docs as "other content you create", even though the difference seems immaterial if you know how these systems work.
Price discrimination. They currently divide users into two groups: people not willing to pay anything to remove any ads, and people willing to pay the current price to remove all the ads.
As the number of users and the price go up, it may make sense to add a middle group: people who are willing to pay some smaller amount to remove (or otherwise reduce the impact) some of the ads.
Tangent idea: musicians should record every live show, and then put it on a streaming service, only for people who bought tickets to the show (possibly for an extra small fee on the ticket). Extra revenue for the artist, and a cool benefit for the fan (the liver performance you attended).
I love going to concerts and I tried pitching this to producers, bands, etc. They just don't care unfortunately.
My mindset was: They already did most of the work, just exporting the audio (that already exists!) would give them extra income. Could be a subscription service, or pay per album, or even for free (it's a marketing channel).
Some bands don't want their live recording out there (multiple reasons: from errors during the live show, or to keep the experience exclusive, or they think some people won't want to go to see them live if they already can listen to it). There is also the aspect of "If we release it for free or in the platform, we can't never make an actual live recording album", which could make some sense.
For years I dreamt about this "Netflix for unreleased live concerts" platform but I couldn't reach anything. Maybe I am really bad seller, and I just needed help from someone with more experience with the industry.
I ended up doing this unofficially for my faovurite artist, with the help of friends and collectors, uploading bootlegs (sometimes amateur recordings, sometimes board sound recording), and catalogued so you can search for all the plays of a particular song, or an album, how many times this song was played, if there was a guest, filter by country, city, year, etc, etc.
There is also the legitimate view that a concert is a physical, ephemeral experience shared by the people in the room on the night. That is it fleeting is part of its beauty, in the same manner as live theater.
Which is not to say no concert should ever be recorded, but I could understand why it wouldn’t be a priority for some artists.
King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard (yes really) do this, but not just for people who buy tickets to the show. They have 444 concerts up on Archive.org for free to all.
I wonder if a band could put together a live stream concert published to a private stream sent to a movie theater. A bunch of fans of the band could get together and have the concert experience with fellow fans but not have to pay as much as an in-person concert. Movie theaters would have another way to get people in the door.
There was a push in the cinema industry a few years back to get more into live events, concerts and stuff like that, but seems like it didn't really take off like they wanted.
This definitely happens. Last time Dead & Company came to town, it was simulcast in the local movie theater. Tickets to the show were only available on a raffle basis since the venue didn't hold nearly enough people.
Then again, the Dead were also pioneers of permitting and encouraging the bootleg scene.
Fugazi released almost 900 shows on CD in the early 2000’s, costing 5 bucks a piece. Some of them are available on their Bandcamp page these days too https://fugazi.bandcamp.com/.
There was a German startup called Bleecker Street [1] about a decade ago that did exactly that. They toured with artists like Chris Rea, Simple Minds, and Mark Knopfler, tapping directly into the FOH desk at each venue. They would mix the audio live, even adding the ambient noise of the crowd to capture the live feeling.
Right after the show, you could buy fancy looking USB sticks, designed with unique elements of the artists, pre-loaded with the recording of the set you had just heard.
I still have a guitar-shaped USB stick from a Mark Knopfler show at a small venue in a tiny town in southern Germany. Honestly, it’s a far better souvenir than any picture I could have taken.
Mike Doughty used to sell burned CDs of the show at the merch table (afterwards in case anyone was worried he was using some Is Chicago, Is Not Chicago technique to violate the space time continuum) back in the aughts.
It's not just a subscription thing, you can purchase individual shows ala bandcamp too.
But yeah, jam bands have really embraced this more than any other category of artist - it's quite common even among low-mid tier jam bands that every single show ends up on Nugs. These bands are often pretty friendly to recordists too (a recent show I was at has two recordings on the IA as well as the Nugs version. Everyone's happy!)
Phish gives people a code that lets them access the show they attend on livephish.com without a subscription. You can subscribe and get access to all of the shows. I think livephish.com is run by and/or shares the same platform as nugs.net but it's a different subscription.
I think (I could be wrong), that relatively few people would value the recordings from every show on a tour. But, many more people would value somewhat exclusive access to the recording for a show they attended in person.
As someone else mentioned above, with jam bands each performance is unique, and people definitely value getting access to every show. For bands repeating the same set as identically as possible on a tour, not sure how much it matters which performance you listen to. Although some people might be into it, for the "I was there" novelty factor.
This has been done. Peter Gabriel, for example, did this on one of his tours (I think Back to Front, but I’m too lazy to dig it up). The California Guitar Trio also experimented with it.
I’m guessing the fact that it’s not a widespread practice is that the return on investment (and we’re talking strictly the additional costs beyond simply recording the show) didn’t justify the effort.
Yeah, I've been to low double-figure gigs[0] where they were selling soundboard CDs shortly after the gig. If I'm not mistaken, a bunch of them were being done by the same company (but an internet search is unproductive.)
[0] In London, I want to say late 2000s, early 2010s?
This gets at something I think a lot of people don't really understand. They see polls that show strong support for policy X, and then complain that politicians don't enact it. What they fail to consider is that while a strong majority may be in favor of the policy, it's not the top (or top 3) priority, and they will support candidates that have the opposite position on X, if they support their top priority.
This is situation where well thought out (and moderately constrained) referendum process can help achieve the majority desire for a policy that would not otherwise be considered important enough to drive the selection of representatives.
Yeah, that's essentially what happened here in Oregon.
And the 2nd chapter of it is after the ballot measure passed, the state liquor commission drug its heels for a couple years, because most of their executives are far more conservative than the median voter here (a side effect of a lot of them being Salem locals vs Portland, but anyhow).
Eventually the state legislature got fed up with the obstructionism and passed a "ok, we're just doing it how CO did, stop stalling" bill.
And here we are. The sky didn't fall.
There's a lotta ways ballot measures can go into stupidity, but this is an instance where it helped force the bureaucracy to align with the majority voter position.
>(a side effect of a lot of them being Salem locals vs Portland, but anyhow).
Because their industry is in bed with government so their priority #1 is coordinating with the people of that industry. The actual "value producing" activity of buying, distributing, selling liquor and managing those relationships is a sideshow.
> They see polls that show strong support for policy X
i would imagine those polls are full of selection bias - even if the poller is trying to be as neutral as possible. People who would agree to participate in polls tend to have strong(er) feelings than those who don't.
> referendum process
instead of referendums, there should be a representative vote by the elected politician, but with an option for the voter to submit their own vote (provided they pass a cursory examination that certifies they have read and understood the bill they're voting for).
E.g., a senator or an elected politician has N number of votes for a bill, where N is the number of people he/she represents. If those people don't want to participate in a bill voting process, the politician will vote on behalf of them (like they do now, supposedly).
However, an individual voter who wishes to, can certify their understanding of said bill, and rescind the representative vote for his electorate and vote himself directly on the bill. The politician will now have N-1 votes on that same bill.
This means for issues of importance, the individual can choose to participate. For issues that they don't care about, but have a vague sense of direction, they have their votes delegated to the politician that they elected once every X years.
Also it doesn’t matter if there’s majority support for a lot of things because most people don’t vote. If you want to get a policy enacted make sure you and your friends vote in elections regularly.
reply