Pictures of babies (top to bottom): Steven Pisano, Tedsblog, Greg, do craven, Jo Jakeman, Craig Wyzik, Ashley Webb, Aaron Coe, markheybo, Philippe Put, all licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (CC by 2.0).
The Music Industry Is Complicated. But Here’s a Bunch of Pictures of Babies Wearing Headphones
I did a simple search in GOOGLE for mixed, hispanic, asian, and black babies wearing headphones and found images. Unfortunately, your imagery communicates the issues within society and the music industry today. The lack of respect for all types of people and children that exist in the world. Show me some diversity brother!
Nail on head.
find some new shit to be angry about and encourage people of all races to be entrepreneurs and maybe we’d get someplace.
did you seriously just post this response to pictures of babies with headphones on… wow
DJ Carl, I really appreciate your feedback on this, as frankly I was thinking the same thing. But, these are the only images that I could freely license and were available to me, at least on very short notice. I put this together on a whim last night, thinking it would be fun. But, yeah, I was a little disappointed with the lack of ethnic diversity within this super-specific niche idea of babies wearing oversized headphones. Anyway, I hope you can still enjoy this little photo montage, which frankly was designed to take the stress off, not add to it.
As someone who rails against free music day in day out, maybe you should support some photographers and pay for images?
facepalm…
I reject the presumption of your criticism, though I’m happy you’ve raised it. We have paid for photographs, but these artists/photographers have expressly allowed the usage of their snapshots for our use, which is commercial. Under Creative Commons, with proper attribution. So we have a totally different situation here: in the case of free content, I’m not sure I’m railing so much against freemium as much as I’m criticizing the rhetoric attached to it. YouTube for example is engaged in a magnificently contorted loophole scheme via the DMCA which seems to involve lots of lip service about paying artists, when in actually it’s a system designed to pay very little. Spotify says that freemium leads to paid, but that’s speculative and obfuscates the broader objective of, well, getting rich via a liquidation event/IPO based on massive user traction. Those things are really completely different than what you’re accusing us of.
Well, first – I do admire the frenetic fingerpointing. It’s impressive. (“magnificently contorted loophole scheme”)
OTOH, DMN isn’t a non-profit – it CERTAINLY isn’t a charity – and qualifies only as outsider art. I realize that DMN’s use of CC content is well within the letter of the terms CC lays out for use, but the point still stands that DMN opts for handouts – literally the kindness of strangers – rather than supporting the idea that photographic work has value and should be supported with dollar votes and a vigorous marketplace.
Or, you could, you know, stop excoriating people accessing music completely within the letter of the law as pirates and freeloaders.
Young, free and white.
Yup. Pretty much DMN in a nutshell.
It’s simple.
Paul hates Black people!
Seriously?
I just read your “Straight Outta Compton” article out loud, and my dog wouldn’t stop barking.
(Since it has to be slowly explained to you: “It was filled with dog whistles.”)
So, yeah. Seriously. You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole on this topic. Quit while you’re ahead.
Did those little motherfuckers pay for that music, or are they freeloading off their parents’ collections?!
Remi!! This is an outrage!
Paul, did you pay the license fee to use those images?