Slashdot Mirror

Oh, wow, lemme think. It was last week at the last ever Spirytus gig. A quid in the donations jar and I am now the proud owner of a signed (Ryan, Danny and Ben, the other Ben skipped the minute the performance was over and Mike was busy packing down the equipment while the rest were busy killing beer) Fundamentals EP.

Best. Unsigned. Band. Ever.

Made all the more satisfying knowing that no major label gets to see a penny. And that's the only difference between being unsigned and being signed. Labels get royalties and they own the rights, not the signed artists, who still have to pay for studio time and production out of their (average) five percent cut on hard sales of current catalogues, and two percent and less on back catalogues. Ask Janis Ian, she'll tell you, labels not only rip off consumers, they rip off artists - royally.

I'm sorry you appear ready to discount or avoid a writer of Card's stature, because I consider Scott one of the finest writers of my generation, period. His short stories about musicians and music are the best I've ever read. What a pity, to deny yourself and your friends the illumination that level of artistry can provide! I suppose we'd also have to discount Wagner because of the Nazi connection? James Joyce and Ezra Pound for their anti-Semitism? Thomas Jefferson, who believed slavery was God-intended? Most, if not all, of the founding fathers, who considered black Africans sub-human? Continuing in that vein, we should probably discount Picasso, a sexist pig. And Beethoven, a royalist and a snob if you ever met one - and if memory serves, an anti-Semite. Not to mention the current pope, who's called homosexuality as big a threat to the world as global warming, and warned that it would destroy civilization as we know it if gays were allowed to marry. Should I discount every faithful Catholic writer, dump Tennessee Williams, Madeleine L'Engel, Flannery O'Connor, because their religion's figurehead is a lunatic? Sorry if you're Catholic... Scratch any artist, in any form, and you'll find things you don't like. You can't judge art by the artist; it has to be judged seperately, on its own merits. The artist himself has to be taken in the context of his times, and of his own culture, including his religion. So long as that art isn't being used to actively cause or promote harm to someone, as in a "Triumph of the Will," I don't think anyone has the right to judge the work by the artist's personal beliefs. But that's my own take. Just for the record, as a gay person who campaigned for and voted for Obama - Obama doesn't think we should be able to marry, either. For many of the same reasons. And I'm sure you're aware of his former pastor's views on not just gays, but whites, and Jews. I have no idea what Obama thinks about gay people, and I fear it's "hate the sin, love the sinner," which I find condescending and disrespectful in the extreme. I'm still glad he's president, and I still think he's an honorable man. Again, I'd hate to think anyone avoided great art just because they disagreed with the artist... On a last note, to say someone is "crazy" or a "lunatic" because they deeply disagree with you, well, that's just as narrow, isn't it? Janis

[Emphasis mine] Appreciate art on its own merits and you'll be the happier for it. Not everything has to be politicized. When everything is politicized, we become incapable of finding common ground with people we disagree with. When we can't even appreciate art together with others who have views we disagree with, how can we ever learn to tolerate each other? How can we have unity amidst diversity if we do not, as Plato said, have a communion of pleasure where we might at least rejoice and mourn over some things we hold common?

DTC is right, but don't believe us - listen to those actually IN the music business (and not just some session musician, either!)...

How 'bout some dumb blonde?
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love

Or one of the first two musical guests on SNL?
http://www.janisian.com/reading/internet.php

Sorry, RIAA, but in the court of public opinion, you're going to have to fork over the goods to their RIGHTFUL owners. The sooner, the better.
Seriously, if your marketing can't rake in a profit in 35 YEARS, then maybe you shouldn't be in the biz in the first place?

Correlation does not imply Causation. They even mention this in the article.

Exactly my thoughts. Sadly the article is in Japanese, so I can't make any judgement as to how well the researchers controlled for this, but it's not rocket science to realise that a highly popular work (=more youtube exposure, more piracy) will be both bought more and pirated more than a less popular work. This does not mean that the people who are pirating are also buying, nor does it mean that the piracy is creating extra publicity (though it might).

The best argument I've seen for downloads creating extra sales is still Janis Ian's article on the subject, but note that this was a call for free downloading, not piracy. And irrespective of what the Japanese article shows, it's worth remembering that even helping to increase sales would not make piracy any less illegal. Personally, I think a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too, here -- they want to have all the benefits of piracy whilst at the same time arguing that they're not committing any offence. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

Disclaimer: I pirate stuff, and probably a lot more than I should. Doesn't stop me recognising it's wrong, though.

Sure Bono, and for the alternative perspective, how about Janis Ian's? "The Internet, and downloading, are here to stay... Anyone who thinks otherwise should prepare themselves to end up on the slagheap of history." ~ http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Personally, I wonder how much music has been lost and locked up bu the music industry? Or how many musicians don't own their own songs? Or how many CDs were never cut, remain unreleased or are locked up in out of print limbo land? How many fat cat executives live it up while new talent can't pay the rent? and so on and so...

There's a general misunderstanding I see here anytime record companies are discussed. Time after time, people say that the label pays for all sorts of things to help artists. The truth is that all of that stuff isn't given to the artists, it's an advance on future royalties.

The artist has to repay the label for the cost of recording an album. The labels charge artists for promotion, too. It's a universal practice to include a "breakage" fee, which means the artist only receives royalties on 90% of sales. Concert touring expenses are also recoupable, paid for by the artist. Royalties are calculated on wholesale prices, not retail prices, so deals with record clubs can be based on deeply discounted wholesale prices and lower royalties

The industry is geared to produce a few smash hit artists. Those who aren't given preferential treatment are generally stuck with big debt to the label. If the label decides not to release an artist's music, the artist can't release it on his own - and this happens quite a lot. The label can insist that the artist remain under contract for 7 years or more, while never releasing any recordings, so the artist is essentially silenced

There is no hope of getting a song on a commercial radio station without the influence of "independent promoters," who have a lock on what stations will play and only promote songs after receiving huge payments. Radio airtime has nothing to do with the merits of the music. No song gets played on commercial radio without a payment to an independent promoter

Most people who have very strong opinions against the music industry have little idea of exactly how bad the industry is. It's a rotten and corrupt industry.

Read what Janis Ian has to say. Read The Truth about the Music Industry."

I think you're talking about SoundExchange, formerly a division of the RIAA. They collect fees for public performance of sound recordings, not from buying CDs or MP3s. The money is distributed to the copyright holders owners of those recordings (usually the record companies).

If they work things at SE like at ASCAP/BMI, then the total mass of income from payments to them is simply distributed percentage-wise based on some kind of statistical sampling. In a way which is not transparent to the artists. I rather doubt that "long-tail" RIAA artists see anything even if they get played O(1) times (and obviously, indie artists couldn't possibly receive anything).

Maybe someone should ask Janis Ian about it, though. Might be interesting to get at least one real data point.

Those of us who are creators are very alarmed by statements like this. How many of us creators have you talked before making blanket statements about how we feel about things?

I can provide you with a long list of creators complaining about piracy, if you would like.

Start with those Metallica fruitcakes. Put Madonna on the list. And then stop. We've already heard enough from "creators" that have an unending sense of entitlement to an unending revenue stream.

Then go read Janis Ian's take on the music industry, and when you've gotten over yourself and realized your true place in society, maybe you'll realize that copyright's purpose isn't about you at all. It just isn't: it's about enriching everyone's lives, not just your pockets. Too bad that Thomas Jefferson isn't around: he could enlighten you. You'll just have to make do with some of his writings. Look them up: maybe you'll develop a clue and realize that you're not as important in the overall scheme of things as you think you are.

"Content creators", "artists", whatever it is that the more or less creative elements of our culture are calling themselves these days have no intrinsic right to a guaranteed income. Produce what we, your buying public, actually want and stop trying to shove it down our collective throat ... learn how to earn a living without the arrogance and dubious protection of the content cartels. Hell, I might even start buying music again, but as it is now, I cannot see giving any of my hard-earned money to anyone who has aligned themselves with the pure black nasty evil of the RIAA and its member corporations. That's why I stopped buying records and CDs from the major labels some thirty years ago: I didn't like who I had to thank for it.

A few examples he's selectively remembered (Metallica, Dr. Dre, Madonna and others are either forgotten or regarded as idiots) constitute the "majority of serious artists",

What examples? Neither Dr. Dre, Madonna or any "others" were specifically mentioned in theheadlessrabitt's post. Not sure where you got that from. Matter of fact, I took his point to mean that "serious" artists are more interested in their contribution to society, than in allowing obsolescent parasites to endlessly profit from their creativity and hard work. Even if you want to put this into simple financial terms, you'll probably have better luck earning an honest living in the Internet Age if you don't sign with a major label.

This is an older article, but Janis Ian certainly qualifies as a longtime industry insider, and she really takes the content cartel to task.

Its pathetic that the slashdot hive mind considers anyone not 100% behind piracy and torrenting content to be a 'MAFIAAAAAA SHILL!!!111'

Its a sign of a pathetic and weak argument that you cannot consider that other people (for example those who fucking make content) may hold a differing opinion.

When you refer to "those who fucking make content", do you mean the artists, writers, musicians, singers, composers, actors, special-effects people, sales and marketing people, engineers of various sorts, camera men, editors, publishers, and all the other myriad talents that come together to produce the creative works that we enjoy ... or are you referring to the amoral pricks who have unethically, if not outright illegally, assumed copyright to those works? Have you actually asked any of the people who create content what their opinions on the subject of peer-to-peer, copyright infringement and similar issues? No? I thought not. Might want to read Janis Ian's take on the matter. The article is from 2002, but it's still very relevant today ... she's not only a creative mind, but she's been in the business for a long, long time. Her opinion of the music industry and the sociopaths who run it largely mirrors that of the Slashdot hive mind. Imagine that.

You, sir, are the one spouting a party line, and it's a damn familiar one. It's a sign of a worthless argument when you assume that anyone who isn't "100% behind" something must, therefore, be 100 percent against it. Life is more complex than that ... and I don't really believe that macraig is an RIAA shill (I was merely explaining how I thought his opinions would be taken here, and I was right.) You, on the other hand, are exhibiting distinct signs of trolldom, if not outright shillness.

...the RIAA will keep on ripping off artists and producing bland, over-compressed, payola-driven crap instead of music.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

http://www.beforethemusicdies.com/

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Darnit, bumped the "submit" button early.

I think the biggest barrier to growth is the lack of music talent now compared to the times past which saw explosive growth in the 70's and 80's.

Not true, not true at all. There is plenty of new music talent out there; the problem is that the MafiAA companies no longer want to promote new talent, because new talent are not interested in selling their eternal souls to crappy slave-labor contracts, MafiAA "creative accounting" practices, and multi-album deals where the labels hold musicians hostage by claiming their final contracted album needs to be "re-done" over and over until they manage to blackmail the artist into signing an extension or giving up any hope of ever owning their own music.

Track the MafiAA's supposed "piracy loss" numbers against the number of new albums and new acts released, and you find a linear correlation that has absolutely nothing to do with "piracy."

But why take it from me? Take it instead from someone who's lived through MafiAA Hell herself.

No artist ever starved because of copyright infringement. Many artists have starved because of obscurity.

There's a simple truth that is getting lost in all this discussion about copyrights and artists being properly compensated for their efforts. Nobody is really arguing that artists should work for free (at least, I'm not.) I will, however, categorically state that more artists have starved because of their relationship with a traditional record label than have ever starved due to "piracy". Not because of obscurity, per se, but because of dishonesty, bad faith and outright criminal behavior on the part of those very corporations who now claim to be "defending the rights of the artists." With people like that defending you, you're better off with us pirates. If nothing else, if we like you there's a good chance we'll give you money.

The level of public hypocrisy in the content industry is truly flabbergasting. Furthermore, the captive artists we are talking about don't even hold the rights to their own works (they sign those away right off the bat) and are very fortunate if they ever make a profit. Don't believe me? Read what Janis Ian has to say about it. Consequently, any of the major record labels (or the RIAA) which states that file sharing takes food from the mouths of the artists is full of pure, unadulterated horsehockey. They cheat their own suppliers, and have the unmitigated gall to complain when they get the same treatment. Hypocrites, all of them.

All the Internet and file sharing have done is take these bloodsucking leeches down a notch. Furthermore, it has given real artists a chance to achieve notoriety based upon their own merits, without some clueless record executive sitting between them and well-deserved financial success. Good for the customer, good for the artist ... maybe not so good for the labels.

Tough bananas.

Using your own example, Arthur C. Clarke - if he'd wanted to patent the idea - would never have been able to fund raising a satellite to geo-sync orbit.
He'd still have been the inventor, but someone with more money could/would have filed the patent become the "inventor".

Or Arthur could have gone looking for an investor. Guess on who's terms it would have been funded then, and who would have made the money.

Just look at how the music industry deals with authorship and copyrights, patents would go the same way. You want to make a record? OK, we'll finance, you sign here, right underneath where it says that 1/2 or 3/4 of what congress tells us we should pay authors will do for you, and BTW, we become the copyright owner for anything you create in the next X years, and we remain in ownership of that for the rest of your life (some actual figures can be found here).

Yeah - except technically speaking, anyone - artist OR label - is part of that industry.

... in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show. I spend hours each week doing press, writing articles, making sure my website tour information is up to date. Why? Because all of that gives me exposure to an audience that might not come otherwise. So when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they'd downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled!

But most listeners don't really have a taste for the FOB-AUD stuff. Most listeners prefer multitrack recorded, post session mixed, with any flubs patched. Thats the vast majority of the music that gets traded on thepiratebay and demonoid (RIP). That's the business that's circling the drain as we watch.

With the death of the RIAA music business, I do sorta wonder how bands will rise to national and international prominence. I'm not saying there will never be rock stars again, but I do wonder what the mechanism will be. I'm well awasre that the RIAA music business ripped off Janice Ian and Roger McGuinn (scroll past Lars) and most other not-quite-superstar musicians. But I honestly wonder: without the RIAA based music business, would we ever have heard of Buddy Holly or the Byrds? Would there have been a national pool where talent could rise to the top?

Now I'm not saying that still happens. According to David Crosby the tides in the talent pool have been pulling all wrong for a long time. I'm not even saying that the RIAA based dinosaurs don't deserve to die. What I am saying is that for 60 or more years, the music industry has maintained a sort of cultural commons -- has provided a meaningful soundtrack for each generation from WWII on -- so that people from far away could join together with shared music. And I'm not trying to be snarky; I truly wonder, when (not if) the RIAA based music industry dies, what will fill in this cultural commons?

It may seem like an unrepresentative, contrived example, but it isn't. The numbers are dramatic, (rounded up for effect, I believe) but not unheard of, especially in the context of a bidding war. Even with those numbers it still holds true. If you're an American Idol winner or similar pop robot, the numbers are even worse. Maybe it sounds like a contrived example because it should be.

I don't see where she said that the fictional band lost there writing and performance royalties, but the publishing royalties (and future royalties of derivative works) are kept by the label. The publishing share is typically 50% of royalties. It's rare that the masters (and control over publishing) return to the artist. It happens most often when an artist hits superstar status, if they negotiate for it. Some artists have been re-recording old material specifically to have better access to publishing revenue from films, commercials, and other sources http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/arts/music/18old.html?pagewanted=all. But for the great majority, once you've written it the label owns it and controls it forever. There's even legal foundation for a suit if you write material while under contract, keep it, and release it later for a different medium or label.

They own your rights throughout the Universe, anyway. Just in case.

There is change happening, and some labels share the risks and rewards better with the artists than these examples describe. But the majors are still lumbering along like drunken, hungry dinosaurs.

I prefer Steve Albini's old piece - it's a shorter read - but it makes the same points. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html To paraphrase his last line, some of my friends are indeed already this fucked. And if you're interested in the homework, you may appreciate Janis Ian's viewpoint as well: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html. She talks more about downloading than contracts, but she makes the same points in the end. (And it's topical to the Radiohead story.)

http://www.janisian.com/articles-perfsong/Fallout%20-%20rev%2011-23-05.pdf

http://www.janisian.com/articles-perfsong/Fallout%20-%20rev%2011-23-05.pdf

Deliberately dumb? Not really, just baiting. Don't think the Xerox copier hasn't been considered in copyright infringement litigation. The main point is the MPAA and RIAA are so bent on driving a crowbar between the consumer and the media they control, they'll do anything necessary to limit our historical rights. Part of this is threatening manufacturers with litigation if they don't apply copy protection systems to ordinary items under threat of violating some imaginary clause of the DMCA. Unfortunately, the DMCA is being used to drive out all notions of "fair use" and the eventual "public domain" status of any copyrighted work. Fortunately, the public can supply feedback to the Government on how the DMCA is going.

The granddaddy of this litigation in the modern age was the Betamax Case where Universal and others accused VCR makers of being part of a copyright infringement mechanism. That was struck down and the ruling was later challenged by MGM v. Grokster. That allowed the Betamax ruling to stand but failed to define the limits of what is legal or illegal in the Internet age.

Meanwhile, the MPAA and RIAA were very busy trying to lock down all technical avenues of distribution. They even tried to get copy protection applied to analog audio systems (apply a phase rotation at several frequencies which triggers copy inhibit). I can't find a current link to that but the RIAA gave demonstrations to Congress on how this would reduce the problem of tape copying and off-air recording. Artists countered with their own demonstrations to Congress on how it trashed the audio. The goal was to enact a law to make copying music illegal under any circumstances, including "fair use". The INDUCE Act proposed by Orrin Hatch gives a glimpse into how far this could go.

I have no idea how they let the CD slip out the door without protections but the content controllers (I hesitate to call them providers) have been trying to retrofit restrictions to the CD ever since the CD-R came about for consumers. The MPAA made sure the DVD wouldn't be in the same boat as the CD or the Betamax. The DVD, obviously designed for recording movies, was not to be released in any form without controls approved by the MPAA members. I work with some of the people who were in the room when the first DVD was made in the U.S. What a mess - the MPAA had teams of lawyers ready to sue you for trying to create a mechanism to pirate movies. That's how the DVD was viewed.

Now, there's no shortage of ways to recognize content and disable equipment from use which displeases the MPAA or RIAA. Fortunately, several watchdog groups are pushing back on the laws just as hard to keep some of these historical freedoms and "fair use" alive. Otherwise, we'd get sued for copyright infringement by walking down the street and whistling a song.

Here are a few other things worth reading:

• The MPAA's attempts to lock down media and eliminate our legal rights.
• Janis Ian's excellent view from the other side of the RIAA.
• How the RIAA is using technology to limit rights.

That would be this article by Steve Albini, which lays it out in real numbers:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

See also Courtney Love's speech on "The Real Pirates" at http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html

A related article:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

The question is whether or not the additional income from increased ticket sales at live shows and merchandise sold (even additional recordings) to people who otherwise wouldn't have heard of the band more than compensates for the potential income lost from sales of DRM-protected recordings to people who have already heard of the band. My own personal belief is that those people who have tried it (like Janis Ian) have found that it does. In any case, as Cory Doctorow put it in a speech to Microsoft:

No Sony customer woke up one morning and said, "Damn, I wish Sony would devote some expensive engineering effort in order that I may do less with my music."

Creative Commons

Defective by Design's List of DRM-Free Music Sites

dmusic

Electronic Frontier Foundation List of "Artists Online"

emusic.com

Fading Ways Records

FreeCulture.org

harveydanger.com

Janis Ian.com

last.fm

Lime Light Radio

live365.com free downloads

MagnaTune

myspace.com

Nettwerk Download Store

R.evolution I.n P.rogress

RIAARadar.com

uncoolcentral.com

Vision Metal Records

I keep a list on my blog and welcome more suggestions.

...from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show.

Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped.

Parent is probably referring to this:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

See also http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

and http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

Parent is probably referring to this:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

See also http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

and http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

The point is that DRM punishes the people who *are* paying for their CDs. And of course it's true that virtuall any mp3 on the web originated from some CD, I don't think a considerable percentage of CD buying consumers actually rips the CDs and puts them on the web, even though I must admit that is more a guess then something I have any numbers for.

And if I read Janis' articles, I get the feeling that it is not in the artists interests to ban downloading, because with every download there is a benefit for the artist: exposure -- his song is played, and if the listener likes it, he just might get interested in buying a CD or coming to a concert.

Janis also posted a follow up article, where she mentions some numbers:

http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

"Winner of the Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is award: Me. We began putting up free downloads around a week after the article came out. We will attempt to put up one free download a week for as long as we can - and leave them all up.
Change in merchandise sales after article posting (previous sales averaged over one year): Up 25%
Change in merchandise sales after beginning free downloads: Up 300%"

After Janis put some of her music for free on the net, she saw a 300% increase in sales. Real money for a real artist *because* of downloading.

Another interesting quote from that article, which is actually a quote from Steven Levy:

"So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that it's all about protecting their internet-challenged business model. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moved to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive - to the detriment of the labels... The smoking gun comes from testimony of an RIAA-backed economist who told the government fee panel that a dramatic shakeout in Webcasting is 'inevitable and desirable because it will bring about market consolidation'." ("Labels to Net Radio: Die Now", Steven Levy in Newsweek, July 15, 2002.)

The bottomline is that downloading seems to quite bad for the industry, but not for the artists and certainly not for the more "underdog" artists, because these actually make their money by performing and not by their CDs, which is more like a tip then actually providing income. Janis puts it this way:

"in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've *never once* received a royalty check that didn't show I owed *them* money."

An interesting read at: http://www.changethis.com/4.drm :

"DRM punishes honest people!" ... "Without DRM, people will steal and artists won't get paid!" ... Usage of Digital Rights Management (DRM) has been hotly debated since a college student threatened to put an entire industry out of business with a little application he built in his spare time, Napster. In this transcript of a speech he gave at Microsoft's campus, Cory explains why DRM doesn't work, why DRM is bad for society, bad for business, bad for artists, and a bad move for Microsoft.

Using Sony and Apple as examples of companies that are using DRM to *punish* consumers, he suggests Microsoft use the opportunity to once again champion users' rights. To follow our current path, Cory argues, is to stifle innovation and contradict the purpose of American copyright law: to promote the useful arts and sciences."

I always find it very remarkable that the content industry treats the people who pay for their products -- in other industries also known as customers -- as criminals. People don't buy cd's because they want to screw the people who made them and make a zillion copies. Those people buy the damn things because they do *not* want to wast their time on copying!

And I also don't think the way customers are treated is in the interest of the artists, in whose name this whole mess is being created. Take a look at an excellent article by Janis Ian, a respectable musician:

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

"They told me downloads were "destroying sales", "ruining the music industry", and "costing you money".

Costing me money? I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet...and check it after they leave, just to make sure nothing's missing."

For what it's worth: this is a women who made more then 25 albums and wrote some very well known songs for other artists. One of her most known songs is "At seventeen", which can be downloaded for free, just like some other songs of her:

http://www.individualidade.com.br/janisian/mp3/jan isian_atseventeen.zip
http://www.janisian.com/mp3_downloads.html

An interesting read at: http://www.changethis.com/4.drm :

"DRM punishes honest people!" ... "Without DRM, people will steal and artists won't get paid!" ... Usage of Digital Rights Management (DRM) has been hotly debated since a college student threatened to put an entire industry out of business with a little application he built in his spare time, Napster. In this transcript of a speech he gave at Microsoft's campus, Cory explains why DRM doesn't work, why DRM is bad for society, bad for business, bad for artists, and a bad move for Microsoft.

Using Sony and Apple as examples of companies that are using DRM to *punish* consumers, he suggests Microsoft use the opportunity to once again champion users' rights. To follow our current path, Cory argues, is to stifle innovation and contradict the purpose of American copyright law: to promote the useful arts and sciences."

I always find it very remarkable that the content industry treats the people who pay for their products -- in other industries also known as customers -- as criminals. People don't buy cd's because they want to screw the people who made them and make a zillion copies. Those people buy the damn things because they do *not* want to wast their time on copying!

And I also don't think the way customers are treated is in the interest of the artists, in whose name this whole mess is being created. Take a look at an excellent article by Janis Ian, a respectable musician:

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

"They told me downloads were "destroying sales", "ruining the music industry", and "costing you money".

Costing me money? I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet...and check it after they leave, just to make sure nothing's missing."

For what it's worth: this is a women who made more then 25 albums and wrote some very well known songs for other artists. One of her most known songs is "At seventeen", which can be downloaded for free, just like some other songs of her:

http://www.individualidade.com.br/janisian/mp3/jan isian_atseventeen.zip
http://www.janisian.com/mp3_downloads.html

Maybe the word of a well-established artist can show you that there really is no problem with downloading and private copying, because that gives free exposure to an artist. The real problem is that most of the money goes into the pockets of the greedy industry, instead of to the artists that make the music in the first place:

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

"in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've *never once* received a royalty check that didn't show I owed *them* money."

More then 25 albums and still owing *them* money...

"I am not saying copyrights are meaningless. I am objecting to the RIAA spin that they are doing this to protect "the artists", and make us more money. I am annoyed that so many records I once owned are out of print, and the only place I could find them was Napster. Most of all, I'd like to see an end to the hysteria that causes a group like RIAA to spend over 45 million dollars in 2001 lobbying "on our behalf", when every record company out there is complaining that they have no money."

And, not unimportant

"Additionally, we've started putting our money where my mouth is. We will be offering one song a week in mp3 format for free downloading..."

http://www.janisian.com/mp3_downloads.html

Maybe the word of a well-established artist can show you that there really is no problem with downloading and private copying, because that gives free exposure to an artist. The real problem is that most of the money goes into the pockets of the greedy industry, instead of to the artists that make the music in the first place:

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

"in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've *never once* received a royalty check that didn't show I owed *them* money."

More then 25 albums and still owing *them* money...

"I am not saying copyrights are meaningless. I am objecting to the RIAA spin that they are doing this to protect "the artists", and make us more money. I am annoyed that so many records I once owned are out of print, and the only place I could find them was Napster. Most of all, I'd like to see an end to the hysteria that causes a group like RIAA to spend over 45 million dollars in 2001 lobbying "on our behalf", when every record company out there is complaining that they have no money."

And, not unimportant

"Additionally, we've started putting our money where my mouth is. We will be offering one song a week in mp3 format for free downloading..."

http://www.janisian.com/mp3_downloads.html

CD sales are down. It doesn't matter if you believe file-sharing is damaging record companies. It's their intellectual property. Should we believe it's okay to not compensate John Carmack for his years of work on Doom 3 because he's rich enough to drive a Ferrari and id made millions off the game?

Please note that record companies != artists ... You might be interested in an actual artist's take on the situation. It's rather old now, having been published in 2002, but it's highly illuminating in terms of both the effect of free music downloads and the nature of the RIAA and recording companies.

Don't assume that the RIAA represents the interests of artists - it quite clearly does not.

ah yes, i like her followup article too :)

if you look at what has happened with online music the ITMS etc etc... it all comes into play with some of the points in her followup article. the music industry couldn't destroy online music downloading. so they went about and tried to control it, but they really 'control' it completely, so they're trying to control the public, and keep people from learning about bands other than the ones being promoted by the music industry etc.

in general I'd say by the fact that p2p numbers 'keep rising' that they're losing the 'control' aspect, but they're still winning in the bottom line because people are still buying from major labels and looking for major label musicians and back catalogs etc. artists and song writeres don't really need a huge 'big 5' record label to get the word out anymore. the internet is too huge, an 'indie' label can pop up a 'torrent' of there latest 'single' legitmitately and host it from a 'cheap' cable or dsl line and the entire internet can download it, for the most part without any major bandwidth bills for the artist, and sell the 'full cd' for whatever price they want... from a simple website. and then they go out and try and post messages on the internet and slink back to the torrent, saying that they're like so and so a band (that they think they sound like) and people can go and download from the torrent, and many people might just say 'forget them' but any fans they make are fans they never would have had without a simple little 'basically free' promotion. now consider if a more established band wants to buy some google adwords for say 'metallica' because they think they sound like metallica used to, for a reasonable price they've now got quite a bit of targeted exposure, people know it's advertising, but they clicked it because it was interesting anyways, and you promised them free music in the ad ;) and they downloaded via torrent and maybe made some new fans... promotion is easy in the internet era, you don't need millions of dollars to advertise during the superbowl.. so they try to scare people away from using 'p2p' because if people use bittorrent for 'legitimate' free (or pay) downloads, then the control is gone, and the legacy donosaur that was the 'record label' is extinct.

who needs a label? the more the labels fight p2p the more evil they look, and the more people who might realize that they do have options, and they don't need to 'listen' to some top 40's radio station or some bibmbo artist who is lipsynching...

Also Janis Ian, and you should read this article by her.

"In 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show... When someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they'd downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled! Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped."

Janis Ian has a number of interesting things to say - including who's getting the money from her record sales, and why.

Copyright Durations
...the copyright term began on the date of publication or registration, and originally lasted 28 years...
http://www.bromsun.com/practice/copyrights/copyrig ht_durations.html

bulk.resource.org
Data rescued by media.org.
http://bulk.resource.org/copyright/

Copyright Clearance Center
http://www.copyright.com/

Copyright in Cyberspace
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p1 33.html

Copyright Management Center
http://copyright.iupui.edu/

Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com/

FAIRCOPY
http://www.faircopy.com/

Janis Ian
The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml
FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

Musicians Against Copyrighting Of Samples
http://www.icomm.ca/macos/

Stanford University Libraries
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

What is Copyright Protection
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

Copyright Durations
...the copyright term began on the date of publication or registration, and originally lasted 28 years...
http://www.bromsun.com/practice/copyrights/copyrig ht_durations.html

bulk.resource.org
Data rescued by media.org.
http://bulk.resource.org/copyright/

Copyright Clearance Center
http://www.copyright.com/

Copyright in Cyberspace
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p1 33.html

Copyright Management Center
http://copyright.iupui.edu/

Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com/

FAIRCOPY
http://www.faircopy.com/

Janis Ian
The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml
FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

Musicians Against Copyrighting Of Samples
http://www.icomm.ca/macos/

Stanford University Libraries
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

What is Copyright Protection
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

Janis Ian wrote an excellent article http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml on the business practices of the recording industry.

Go here, then here, then go here. Then you decide what works for you. And that's the bottom line, it's all about what works best for you.

Go here, then here, then go here. Then you decide what works for you. And that's the bottom line, it's all about what works best for you.

Folk / rock singer Janis Ian proposed a very similar model (her ideology was a quarter a song) in a great article from 2002. Her original piece (linked at top) is a good read as well and gives a good view from an "insider's" point of view about the (then) state of the music industry.

the RIAA's members have a good bit of skill at picking out good artists

I don't think so. They have just been the only choice for a long time.
That way, you can squeeze the artist in many different ways.

Killing p2p would be very, very easy ... make everything, even out of print stuff available online so it's easier to find stuff you want in the store than in some p2p network. Lower the prices (slowly) (for both soft and hard copies) to the point where people wouldn't bother to rip a CD but just buy the album again in the format they prefer. Make it so cheap that people woun't even bother to borrow albums from eachother!

The reason that 99.99% of those independent artists aren't signed is because they aren't as good as the competition, or more simply, because they suck

Different strokes for different folks. Music is not a competition, it's an expression. You might like what the artist has to say, you might not.
With the amount of songs Apple have sold now, they can do some serious datamining. They know who bought what.. for the last year! That's very valuable information.
You have bought this, that means you might be interested in this too?

"I would like to see how much is actually given to the artist per sale. I would suspect that a lot of older music gives less than a cent per sold song to the original artist."

artists, new and old, rarely make money on cd/record sales. in fact, they often end up with royalty bills at the end of the day as a result of the recoupment of fees by the labels. artists make money on touring and merchandise sails primarily.

some quick links:

link
link

janis ian also gives her take as a musician on her website

sum.zero

I like the article by Steve Albini .. it's a classic, as is Janis Ian's articles about the same subject. Makes you think ...

At the moment the rich lawyers of the music industry is suing left and right, striking out at the fans, in the name of the poor, poor artist. The artists are not saying much or they don't dare to say much. The ones that make it to the other end of the pool of shit forget about the ones they pushed under to get there.

Music should not be about making money, but about saying what you have on your heart. If, what you say in you music, apeals to me, I have no problem dishing out the dough, to YOU. I couldn't care less about the studio, the lawyers, the distribution, the stores, the thousands of people that leach on the fruit that you have produced.

Suing Fans Hurts artists. Mp3 is reduced quality, treat it as such. ..but I am off on a rant and should probably just close my browser tab as so many times befor, but I want you to know that you are right!

Misc. observations, re : musicians and profit 1. A good percent - a majority in some cases - of the overall 'cost' of a cd goes towards promoting. This includes ads in, say, Rolling Stone as well as 'promo cds' for the radio. In illegal cases this includes literal dollars to radio stations, to favor their songs (, particularly 'new and fortcoming' artists). Ad rates alas are very expensive. The internet is an example of a business model which is changing this. Singer Janis Ian has some very informative article (and followup) to this business model. 2. After set-up, broadcast, and misc. fees, unless tee-shirts, et al. are sold at a concert many artists hardly make enough to turn a profit. Apparently "lighting" can be expensive. This is a reason why those shirts are just so terribly expensive while on the road. Indie singer Ani Difranco, for example, wrestled for many years before relutantly allowing it at her own events. She has written of the sliding profit margins in various articles before. 3. profit! maybe. heh.

They have ruled the custmers by distributing some poor songs, putting a lot of pressure ont the artists because there was no alternative!

Now, this alternative exists: artists can be known through the quality of their works, and they are directly judged by the auditors. They can fund their work by making more concerts and tours, this is a better reward than selling many cds and getting the smallest fraction after the distributor, the record company,...

I think that music, and artists have to encourage P2P, to gain their independance back from the period of the record industry totalitarism.

The same happens with opensource: the internet shapes the way ideas and intellectual products are distributed in the world, and that the way it should be: Ideas must be propagated, shared and enhanced or they are useless / copyrighted.

Some licences as creative common are emerging, and this has to be encouraged.

You can have a look at some very interesting articles here.

Share / enhance this though or keep silent

if i was going to admit dowloading music with a fileshare programme i would also say that it has meant i buy more music than i used to.

Try some of my favourite from a self published artist, Janis Ian

Why do we tolerate a society where artists do not have rights over their own material?

Because if making art costs a lot money, the people footing the bill get to make the rules. Do you find this unjust?

I find this unjust. It would make more sense to have joint ownership, and once the person footing the bill gets his 100% ROI, he loses all copyright privileges. Of course in the real world artists would let distributors keep distributing material (and keeping some of the profit) for them, but it would not be the corrupt system it is now where record/movie companies can milk artists for millions of dollars, much more than their investment, and still keep exclusive rights. Try reading what Janis Ian has to say on this topic.